CCJM delivers practical clinical articles relevant to internists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, and other specialists, all written by known experts.

Theme
medstat_ccjm
Top Sections
CME
Reviews
1-Minute Consult
The Clinical Picture
Smart Testing
Symptoms to Diagnosis
ccjm
Main menu
CCJM Main Menu
Explore menu
CCJM Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18804001
Unpublish
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
direct\-acting antivirals
assistance
ombitasvir
support path
harvoni
abbvie
direct-acting antivirals
paritaprevir
advocacy
ledipasvir
vpak
ritonavir with dasabuvir
program
gilead
greedy
financial
needy
fake-ovir
viekira pak
v pak
sofosbuvir
support
oasis
discount
dasabuvir
protest
ritonavir
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-cleveland-clinic')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Society
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
LayerRx MD-IQ Id
773
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz

When snoring is more than an annoyance

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 14:14
Display Headline
When snoring is more than an annoyance

We have all seen cartoons of an unhappy wife awake in bed next to her loudly snoring husband. Casual conversations with friends, particularly female ones, indicate that this is an accurate representation of a common scenario. As I have started to probe more diligently for evidence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in my patients, not just in those who complain of “fatigue” (more patients use this term with me than “sleepiness”), I see a lot of shaking of heads from the wives of men who deny that they snore or have disrupted sleep. I am not implying that this is solely a male disease. Far from it. But as in other medical scenarios, the Y chromosome seems somehow linked to denial or lack of awareness of symptoms. In any event, I was not a bit surprised to read in the review by Dr. Mehra in this issue of the Journal that 17% of adults may have OSA.

As awareness of OSA has grown and testing for it has become easier, multiple reports have documented associated comorbidities: hypertension, restless leg syndrome, gout, and neurocognitive deficits. Home devices to treat OSA have significantly improved. Technological advances have led to the development of small, quiet, smart pumps that provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) via nasal or relatively comfortable full-face masks. Compliance and patient acceptance of CPAP have improved, although patient education and a bit of cajoling in the office are still necessary—less so if the bedroom partner is also present for this discussion.

Perhaps surprising is a growing pool of data showing that CPAP’s benefits extend to more than just reducing sleepiness. It can reduce nocturia, restless leg syndrome, arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation, gastric reflux, and fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. Snoring and thus probably sleep-partner satisfaction are also improved.

Several physiologic mechanisms may explain the benefits of CPAP, including reducing hypoxic episodes (explaining its effect on atrial fibrillation), altered atrial natriuretic factor levels (thus reducing nocturia), and changing intrathoracic pressure (thus reducing gastric reflux). It will be interesting to see if there are long-term effects of successfully applied CPAP on neurocognition and progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

While high-decibel snoring and snorting are not present in all patients with OSA, it is quite clear now that they represent far more than an annoyance. We should be vigilant about looking for OSA and strongly encourage a trial of CPAP in appropriately diagnosed patients.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
457
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information
Author and Disclosure Information
Article PDF
Article PDF

We have all seen cartoons of an unhappy wife awake in bed next to her loudly snoring husband. Casual conversations with friends, particularly female ones, indicate that this is an accurate representation of a common scenario. As I have started to probe more diligently for evidence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in my patients, not just in those who complain of “fatigue” (more patients use this term with me than “sleepiness”), I see a lot of shaking of heads from the wives of men who deny that they snore or have disrupted sleep. I am not implying that this is solely a male disease. Far from it. But as in other medical scenarios, the Y chromosome seems somehow linked to denial or lack of awareness of symptoms. In any event, I was not a bit surprised to read in the review by Dr. Mehra in this issue of the Journal that 17% of adults may have OSA.

As awareness of OSA has grown and testing for it has become easier, multiple reports have documented associated comorbidities: hypertension, restless leg syndrome, gout, and neurocognitive deficits. Home devices to treat OSA have significantly improved. Technological advances have led to the development of small, quiet, smart pumps that provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) via nasal or relatively comfortable full-face masks. Compliance and patient acceptance of CPAP have improved, although patient education and a bit of cajoling in the office are still necessary—less so if the bedroom partner is also present for this discussion.

Perhaps surprising is a growing pool of data showing that CPAP’s benefits extend to more than just reducing sleepiness. It can reduce nocturia, restless leg syndrome, arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation, gastric reflux, and fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. Snoring and thus probably sleep-partner satisfaction are also improved.

Several physiologic mechanisms may explain the benefits of CPAP, including reducing hypoxic episodes (explaining its effect on atrial fibrillation), altered atrial natriuretic factor levels (thus reducing nocturia), and changing intrathoracic pressure (thus reducing gastric reflux). It will be interesting to see if there are long-term effects of successfully applied CPAP on neurocognition and progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

While high-decibel snoring and snorting are not present in all patients with OSA, it is quite clear now that they represent far more than an annoyance. We should be vigilant about looking for OSA and strongly encourage a trial of CPAP in appropriately diagnosed patients.

We have all seen cartoons of an unhappy wife awake in bed next to her loudly snoring husband. Casual conversations with friends, particularly female ones, indicate that this is an accurate representation of a common scenario. As I have started to probe more diligently for evidence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in my patients, not just in those who complain of “fatigue” (more patients use this term with me than “sleepiness”), I see a lot of shaking of heads from the wives of men who deny that they snore or have disrupted sleep. I am not implying that this is solely a male disease. Far from it. But as in other medical scenarios, the Y chromosome seems somehow linked to denial or lack of awareness of symptoms. In any event, I was not a bit surprised to read in the review by Dr. Mehra in this issue of the Journal that 17% of adults may have OSA.

As awareness of OSA has grown and testing for it has become easier, multiple reports have documented associated comorbidities: hypertension, restless leg syndrome, gout, and neurocognitive deficits. Home devices to treat OSA have significantly improved. Technological advances have led to the development of small, quiet, smart pumps that provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) via nasal or relatively comfortable full-face masks. Compliance and patient acceptance of CPAP have improved, although patient education and a bit of cajoling in the office are still necessary—less so if the bedroom partner is also present for this discussion.

Perhaps surprising is a growing pool of data showing that CPAP’s benefits extend to more than just reducing sleepiness. It can reduce nocturia, restless leg syndrome, arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation, gastric reflux, and fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. Snoring and thus probably sleep-partner satisfaction are also improved.

Several physiologic mechanisms may explain the benefits of CPAP, including reducing hypoxic episodes (explaining its effect on atrial fibrillation), altered atrial natriuretic factor levels (thus reducing nocturia), and changing intrathoracic pressure (thus reducing gastric reflux). It will be interesting to see if there are long-term effects of successfully applied CPAP on neurocognition and progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

While high-decibel snoring and snorting are not present in all patients with OSA, it is quite clear now that they represent far more than an annoyance. We should be vigilant about looking for OSA and strongly encourage a trial of CPAP in appropriately diagnosed patients.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Page Number
457
Page Number
457
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
When snoring is more than an annoyance
Display Headline
When snoring is more than an annoyance
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Sleep apnea ABCs: Airway, breathing, circulation

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 14:37
Display Headline
Sleep apnea ABCs: Airway, breathing, circulation

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common and poorly recognized and, if untreated, leads to serious health consequences. This article discusses the epidemiology of OSA, describes common presenting signs and symptoms, and reviews diagnostic testing and treatment options. Adverse health effects related to untreated sleep apnea are also discussed.

COMMON, POORLY RECOGNIZED, AND COSTLY IF UNTREATED

OSA is very common in the general population and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. An estimated 17% of the general adult population has OSA, and the numbers are increasing with the obesity epidemic. Nearly 1 in 15 adults has at least moderate sleep apnea,1,2 and approximately 85% of cases are estimated to be undiagnosed.3 A 1999 study estimated that untreated OSA resulted in approximately $3.4 billion in additional medical costs per year in the United States,4 a figure that is likely to be higher now, given the rising prevalence of OSA. The prevalence of OSA in primary care and subspecialty clinics is even higher than in the community, as more than half of patients who have diabetes or hypertension and 30% to 40% of patients with coronary artery disease are estimated to have OSA.5–7

REPETITIVE UPPER-AIRWAY COLLAPSE

During sleep, parasympathetic activity is enhanced and the muscle tone of the upper airway is decreased, particularly in the pharyngeal dilator muscles. Still, even in the supine position, a healthy person maintains patency of the airway and adequate airflow during sleep.

OSA is characterized by repetitive complete or partial collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in an apneic or hypopneic event, respectively, and often causing snoring from upper-airway tissue vibration.

People who are susceptible to OSA typically have a smaller, more collapsible airway that is often less distensible and has a higher critical closing pressure. Radiographic and physiologic data have shown that the airway dimensions of patients with OSA are smaller than in those without OSA. The shape of the airway of a patient with OSA is often elliptical, given the extrinsic compression of the lateral aspects of the airway by increased size of the parapharyngeal fat pads. OSA episodes are characterized by closure of the upper airway and by progressively increasing respiratory efforts driven by chemoreceptor and mechanoreceptor stimuli, culminating in an arousal from sleep and a reopening of the airway.

The disease-defining metric used for assessing OSA severity is the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneas and hypopneas that occur per hour of sleep.8 An apneic or hypopneic event is identified during polysomnography by the complete cessation of airflow or by a reduction in airflow for 10 seconds or longer (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1. This polysomnogram of a 2-minute compressed window of time shows repetitive obstructive apneic events and a hypopneic event accompanied by severe oxygen desaturation (nadir, 78%) and arousals detected by encephalography that occur at the termination of the respiratory events. The patient is lying on his right side and is in N2 and N1 stages of sleep. The red arrow points to the obstructive apnea, the green arrow to the arousal, and the blue arrow to the accompanying oxygen desaturation episode. There is a delay of desaturation due to circulation time. The patient is a 47-year-old man with hypertension, asthma, excessive daytime sleepiness, snoring, witnessed apneic events, and multiple awakenings from sleep caused by cough and shortness of breath. The overall apnea-hypopnea index observed on this polysomnogram was 86 events per hour of sleep. This, along with the severe degree of hypoxia and accompanying symptoms, is consistent with the diagnosis of severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. EEG = electroencephalography; EMG = electromyography

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES IF UNTREATED

Untreated sleep apnea causes numerous pathophysiologic perturbations, including chronic intermittent hypoxia, ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, increased sympathetic nervous system activity, intrathoracic pressure swings, hypercapnea, sleep fragmentation, increased arousals, reduced sleep duration, and fragmentation of rapid-eye-movement sleep.

Intermittent hypoxia activates the sympathetic nervous system and causes pulmonary vasoconstriction, with increases in pulmonary arterial pressures and myocardial workload. Sympathetic activation, ascertained by peroneal microneurography, has been shown to be increased not only during sleep but also persisting during wakefulness in patients with untreated OSA vs those without OSA.9 Autonomic nervous system fluctuations accompany apneic episodes, resulting in enhanced parasympathetic tone and sympathetic activation associated with a rise in blood pressure and heart rate that occur after the respiratory event.

Intermediate pathways that link the negative pathophysiologic effects of OSA with adverse health outcomes include increased systemic inflammation, increased oxidative stress, metabolic dysfunction, insulin resistance, hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction, and autonomic dysfunction.

As a result, a variety of adverse clinical outcomes are associated with untreated OSA, including systemic hypertension, ischemic heart disease and atherosclerosis, diastolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, increased risk of death, and sudden death, as well as noncardiovascular outcomes such as gout, neurocognitive deficits, and mood disorders.10

 

 

Inflammatory and atherogenic effects

Increased levels of markers of systemic inflammation, prothrombosis, and oxidative stress have been observed in OSA and may be key pathophysiologic links between OSA and cardiovascular sequelae. OSA has been associated with up-regulation of a number of inflammatory mediators: interleukin (IL) 6, soluble IL-6 receptor, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and C-reactive protein. Soluble IL-6 levels in particular are higher in people who have sleep-disordered breathing, as reflected by the apnea-hypopnea index independent of obesity, with relationships stronger in the morning than in the evening. This likely reflects the overnight OSA-related physiologic stress.11

Thrombotic potential is also enhanced, with higher levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, fibrinogen, P-selectin, and vascular endothelial growth factor. Some of these factors normally have a diurnal cycle, with higher levels in the morning, but in OSA, increasing OSA severity is associated with increased prothrombotic potential in the morning hours. Of interest, levels of these substances showed a plateau effect, rising in people who had only mildly elevated apnea-hypopnea indices and then leveling off.12 Intermittent hypoxia followed by ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, characteristic of sleep apnea, provides the ideal environment for augmentation of oxidative stress, with evidence of increased oxidation of serum proteins and lipids. Hypoxia and oxygen-derived free radicals may result in cardiac myocyte injury. Experimental data demonstrate that intermittent hypoxia combined with a high-fat diet results in synergistic acceleration of evidence of atherogenic lesions.

Patients with OSA also have evidence of endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, all pathways that can facilitate the progression of atherosclerosis in OSA.13–15

Cardiac arrhythmias

In the Sleep Heart Health Study, a multicenter epidemiologic study designed to examine the relationships of OSA and cardiovascular outcomes, those who had moderate to severe OSA had a risk of ventricular and atrial arrhythmias two to four times higher than those without OSA, even after correction for the confounding influences of obesity and underlying cardiovascular risk.14 These findings were corroborated in subsequent work highlighting monotonic dose-response relationships with increasing OSA severity and increased odds of atrial and ventricular arrhythmia in a cohort of about 3,000 older men.11 Additional compelling evidence of a causal relationship is that the risk of discrete arrhythmic events is markedly increased after a respiratory disturbance in sleep.16

In patients who successfully underwent cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, those who had sleep apnea but were not treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) had a much higher rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation during the subsequent year than those with CPAP-treated sleep apnea and than controls never diagnosed with sleep apnea. In the untreated patients with sleep apnea, the mean nocturnal fall in oxygen saturation was significantly greater in those who had recurrence of atrial fibrillation than in those who did not, suggesting hypoxia as an important mechanism contributing to atrial fibrillation.17

Since then, several other retrospective studies have shown similar findings after pulmonary vein antrum isolation and ablation in terms of reduction of atrial fibrillation recurrence with CPAP treatment in OSA.18

Walia et al19 described a patient with moderate sleep apnea who underwent a split-night study. During the baseline part of the study, the patient had about 18 ectopic beats per minute. During the second portion of the study while CPAP was applied, progressively fewer ectopic beats occurred as airway pressure was increased until a normal rhythm without ectopic beats was achieved at the goal treatment CPAP pressure setting.

Cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death

Marin et al20 followed about 1,500 men for 10 years, including some who had severe OSA, some with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP, and controls. The risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular disease events was nearly three times higher in those with severe disease than in healthy participants. Those treated with CPAP had a risk approximately the same as in the control group.

The Sleep Heart Study followed approximately 6,000 people with untreated sleep apnea for a median of nearly 9 years. It found a significant association between the apnea-hypopnea index and ischemic stroke, especially in men.21 Survival in patients with heart failure is also associated with the degree of OSA; patients with more severe disease (an apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15) have a nearly three times greater risk of death than those with no disease or only mild disease (apnea-hypopnea index < 15).22

From the standpoint of health care utilization, findings that central sleep apnea predicts an increased risk of hospital readmission in heart failure are of particular interest.23

People with OSA are at increased risk of nocturnal sudden cardiac death.24 Sleep apnea is also associated with an increased overall death rate, and the higher the apnea-hypopnea index, the higher the death rate,25 even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and underlying cardiovascular risk, with findings most pronounced in men under age 70.

Motor vehicle accidents

The need for caution during driving should be discussed with every patient, as motor vehicle accidents are an immediate danger to the patient and others. The association with motor vehicle accidents is independent of sleepiness, and drivers with sleep apnea often do not perceive performance impairment. Young et al26 found that men who snored were 3.4 times as likely to have an accident over a 5-year period, and that men and women with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 15 were more than 7 times as likely to have multiple accidents over a 5-year period, highlighting the importance of discussing, documenting, and expeditiously diagnosing and treating OSA, particularly in those who report drowsiness while driving.

CLINICAL RISK FACTORS

Risk factors can be divided into nonmodifiable and modifiable ones.

Nonmodifiable factors

Age. Bimodal distributions in OSA prevalence have been observed; ie, that the pediatric population and people who are middle-aged have the highest prevalence of OSA. A linear relationship between sleep apnea prevalence and age until about age 65 was identified in data from the Sleep Heart Health Study.27 After that, the prevalence rates plateau; it is unclear if this is secondary to natural remission of the disease after a certain age or because patients with more severe disease have died by that age (ie, survivorship bias), blunting an increase in prevalence.

Sex. Men develop sleep apnea at a rate three to five times that of women. Several explanations have been proposed to account for this.28,29 Sex hormones are one factor; women with sleep apnea on hormone replacement therapy have a significantly less-severe sleep apnea burden than other postmenopausal women,30 suggesting a positive effect from estrogen. Sex-based differences in fat distribution, length and collapsibility of the upper airway, genioglossal activity, neurochemical control mechanisms, and arousal response may also contribute to prevalence differences between men and women.

As with coronary artery disease, the presentation of sleep apnea may be atypical in women, particularly around menopause. Sleep apnea should be considered in women who have snoring and daytime sleepiness.

Race. Whites, African Americans, and Asians have a similar prevalence of sleep apnea, but groups differ in obesity rates and craniofacial anatomy.31–34 Asians tend to have craniofacial skeletal restriction. African Americans are more likely to have upper-airway soft-tissue risk and to develop more severe OSA. Whites tend to have both craniofacial and soft-tissue risk. For those with craniofacial anatomy predisposing to OSA, even mild obesity can make it manifest.

Syndromes that predispose to OSA can include craniofacial structural abnormalities, connective tissue problems, or alterations in ventilatory control (eg, Marfan, Down, and Pierre Robin syndromes).

 

 

Modifiable risk factors

Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) is a firmly established risk factor, but not all obese patients develop obstructive sleep apnea, and not all people with sleep apnea are obese.

Obesity increases risk by altering the geometry and function of the upper airway, increasing collapsibility. The changes are particularly pronounced in the lateral aspects of the pharynx.35

Obesity also affects respiratory drive, likely in part from leptin resistance. Load compensation is another contributing factor: the increased mass in the thorax and abdomen increases the work of breathing and reduces functional residual capacity, increasing oxygen demands and leading to atelectasis and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

Although obesity is an important risk factor, it is important to recognize that obesity is not the only one to consider: most people with an apnea-hypopnea index of 5 or greater are not obese. The relationship between body mass index and sleep apnea is weaker in children and in the elderly, probably because other risk factors are more pronounced.36

Craniofacial structural abnormalities such as retrognathia (abnormal posterior position of the mandible) and micrognathia (undersized mandible) can increase the risk of OSA because of a resulting posteriorly displaced genioglossus muscle. Other conditions can alter chemosensitivity, affecting the pH and carbon dioxide level of the blood and therefore affecting ventilatory control mechanisms, making the person more prone to developing sleep apnea. Children and young adults may have tonsillar tissue that obstructs the airway.

The site of obstruction can be behind the palate (retropalatal), behind the tongue (retroglossal), or below the pharynx (hypopharyngeal). This helps explain why positive air way pressure—unlike surgery, which addresses a specific area—is often successful, as it serves to splint or treat all aspects of the airway.

FATIGUE, SLEEPINESS, SNORING, RESTLESS SLEEP

Sleep apnea can result in presentation of multiple signs and symptoms (Table 1).

Daytime sleepiness and fatigue are the most common symptoms. Although nonspecific, they are often quite pronounced. Two short questionnaires—the Epworth Sleepiness Scale37 and the Fatigue Severity Scale—can help distinguish between these two symptoms and assess their impact on a patient’s daily life. In the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the patient rates his or her chance of dozing on a 4-point scale (0 = would never doze, to 3 = high chance of dozing) in eight situations:

  • Sitting and reading
  • Watching television
  • Sitting inactive in a public place
  • As a passenger in a car for an hour without a break
  • Lying down to rest in the afternoon
  • Sitting and talking to someone
  • Sitting quietly after a lunch without alcohol
  • In a car while stopped for a few minutes in traffic.

A score of 10 or more is consistent with significant subjective sleepiness.

The Fatigue Severity Scale assesses the impact of fatigue on daily living.

Snoring is a common and specific symptom of sleep apnea; however, not all patients who snore have OSA.

Restlessness during sleep is very common—patients may disturb their bed partner by moving around a lot during sleep or report that the sheets are “all over the place” by morning.

Nocturia can also be a sign of sleep apnea and can contribute to sleep fragmentation. A proposed mechanism of this symptom includes alterations of intrathoracic pressure resulting in atrial stretch, which release atrial natriuretic peptide, leading to nocturia. Treating with CPAP has been found to reduce levels of atrial natriuretic peptide, contributing to better sleep.38

Morning headache may occur and is likely related to increased CO2 levels, which appear to culminate in the morning hours. End-tidal or transcutaneous CO2 monitoring during polysomnography can help elucidate the presence of sleep-related hypoventilation.

Libido is often diminished and can actually be improved with CPAP. This is therefore an important point to discuss with patients, as improved libido can often serve as an incentive for adherence to OSA treatment.

Insomnia exists in about 15% of patients, primarily as a result of sleep apnea-related with treatment.

Sweating, particularly forehead sweating associated with sleep apnea, more commonly occurs in children.

The STOP-BANG questionnaire (Table 2)39 was primarily validated in preoperative anesthesia testing. However, because of its ease of use and favorable performance characteristics, it is increasingly used to predict the likelihood of finding OSA before polysomnography. A score of 3 or more has a sensitivity of 93%.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION PROVIDES CLUES

Although the physical examination may be normal, certain findings indicate risk (Table 3). Obesity alone is not an accepted indication for polysomnography unless there are concomitant worrisome signs or symptoms. Of note, those who are morbidly obese (BMI > 40 kg/m2) have a prevalence of sleep apnea greater than 70%.

The classification by Friedman et al40 provides an indicator of risk. The patient is examined with the mouth opened wide and the tongue in a neutral natural position. Grades:

  • I—Entire uvula and tonsils are visible
  • II—Entire uvula is visible, but tonsils are not
  • III—Soft palate is visible, but uvula is not
  • IV—Only the hard palate is visible.

Especially in children and young adults, enlarged tonsils (or “kissing tonsils”) and a boggy edematous uvula set the stage for obstructive sleep apnea.

 

 

DIAGNOSIS REQUIRES SLEEP TESTING

A sleep study is the primary means of diagnosing OSA. Polysomnography includes electrooculography to determine when rapid-eye-movement sleep occurs; electromyography to measure muscle activity in the chin to help determine onset of sleep, with peripheral leads in the leg to measure leg movements; electroencephalography (EEG) to measure neural activity; electrocardiography; pulse oximetry to measure oxygen saturation; measurement of oronasal flow; and measurements of chest wall effort and body position using thoracic and abdominal belts that expand and contract with breathing; and audio recording to detect snoring.

Attended polysomnography requires the constant presence of a trained sleep technologist to monitor for technical issues and patient adherence.

End-tidal CO2 monitoring is a reasonable method to detect sleep-related hypoventilation but is not routinely performed in the United States. Transcutaneous CO2 monitoring is a different way to monitor CO2 used in the setting of positive airway pressure.

Polysomnography in a normal patient shows a regular pattern of increasing and decreasing airflow with inspiration and expiration while stable oxygen saturation is maintained.

In contrast, polysomnography of a patient with sleep apnea shows repetitive periods of no airflow, oxygen desaturation, and often evidence of thoracoabdominal paradox, punctuated by arousals on EEG associated with sympathetic activation (Figure 1). When the patient falls asleep, upper-airway muscle tone is reduced, causing an apneic event with hypoxia and pleural pressure swings. These prompt arousals with sympathetic activation that reestablish upper-airway muscle tone, allowing ventilation and reoxygenation to resume with a return to sleep.

Apnea-hypopnea index indicates severity

Sleep apnea severity is graded using the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneic and hypopneic events per hour of sleep (Table 4).41 Events must last at least 10 seconds to be considered, ie, two consecutive missed breaths based on an average normal respiratory rate of about 12 breaths per minute for the typical adult.

The apnea-hypopnea index usually correlates with the severity of oxygen desaturation and with electrocardiographic abnormalities, including tachybradycardia and arrhythmias.

Although history, physical examination, and prediction tools are helpful in determining the likelihood that a patient has OSA, only polysomnography testing can establish the diagnosis. To diagnose OSA, 15 or more obstructive events per hour must be observed by polysomnography, or at least 5 events per hour with one of the following:

  • Daytime sleepiness, sleep attacks, unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, or insomnia
  • Waking with breath-holding, gasping, or choking
  • Observer-reported loud snoring or breathing interruptions.41

Split-night study determines diagnosis and optimum treatment

The split-night study has two parts: the first is diagnostic polysomnography, followed by identification of the positive airway pressure that optimally treats the sleep apnea. The apnea-hypopnea index guides the need for the split-night study, with 40 being the established threshold according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

A home sleep study is appropriate for some patients

Home sleep testing is typically more limited than standard polysomnography; it monitors airflow, effort, and oxygenation. The test is intended for adults with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (STOP-BANG score ≥ 3). It is not intended for screening of asymptomatic patients or for those with coexisting sleep disorders (eg, central sleep apnea, sleep hypoventilation, periodic limb movements, insomnia, circadian rhythm disorders, parasomnias, narcolepsy) or medical disorders (eg, moderate to severe heart failure or other cardiac disease, symptomatic neurologic disease, moderate to severe pulmonary disease).42 Since March 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has covered CPAP for obstructive sleep apnea based on diagnosis by home sleep study testing.43

TREATMENT OF SLEEP APNEA

Basic steps for reducing OSA are:

Weight loss. Even small weight changes can significantly affect the severity of sleep apnea, perhaps even leading to a reassessment of the degree of OSA and CPAP requirements. Longitudinal epidemiologic data demonstrate that a 10% weight loss correlates with a 26% reduction in the apnea-hypopnea index, and conversely, a 10% weight gain is associated with a 32% increase.44

Some studies have found that bariatric surgery cures OSA in 75% to 88% of cases, independent of approach.45,46 However, a trial in 60 obese patients with OSA who were randomized to either a low-calorie diet or bariatric surgery found no statistical difference in the apnea-hypopnea index between the two groups despite greater weight loss in the surgery group.47

Avoiding certain medications. Benzodiazepines, narcotics, and alcohol reduce upper airway muscle tone and should be avoided. No medications are associated with improvement of OSA, although acetazolamide may be used to treat central sleep apnea.

Positional therapy. Sleeping on the back exacerbates the problem. Supine-related OSA occurs as a result of several factors, including gravity, airway anatomy, airway critical closing pressures, and effects on upper-airway dilator muscle function.

Sleep hygiene. General recommendations to engage in behaviors to promote sleep are recommended, including keeping consistent sleep-wake times, not watching television in bed, and avoidance of caffeine intake, particularly within 4 to 6 hours of bedtime.

POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE THERAPY

Nasal CPAP is the treatment of choice and is successful in 95% of patients when used consistently. It is not as costly as surgery, and results in improved long-term survival compared with uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Another advantage is that the pressure can be retitrated as the patient’s condition changes, for example after a weight change or during pregnancy.

More than 15 randomized controlled trials have examined the effect of sleep apnea treatment with CPAP compared with either sham CPAP or another control. In a meta-analysis, CPAP was found to lead to an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 2.5 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure reduction of 1.8 mm Hg. Although these reductions may seem negligible, benefits may be significant for cardiovascular outcomes.48,49

Challenges to treatment adherence

Adherence is the most commonly discussed problem with CPAP, but long-term adherence rates are comparable to medication compliance—about 60% to 70%. To optimize adherence, communication is important to ensure that problems are identified and addressed as they arise. Showing patients examples of apneic events and oxygen desaturation from their sleep study can enhance their understanding of OSA and its importance. Patients need to understand the serious nature of the disease and that CPAP therapy can significantly improve their quality of life and overall health, particularly from a cardiovascular perspective.

CPAP masks can be uncomfortable, posing a major barrier to compliance. But a number of mask designs are available, such as the nasal mask, the nasal pillow mask, and the oronasal mask. For patients with claustrophobia, the nasal pillow mask is an option, as it does not cover the face.

Some patients note symptoms of nasal congestion, although in many patients CPAP improves it. If congestion is a problem, the use of heated humidification with the machine, intranasal saline or gel, or nasal corticosteroids can help relieve it.

Pressure intolerance is a common problem. For those who feel that the pressure is too high, settings can be adjusted so that the pressure is gradually reduced between inspiration and expiration, ie, the use of expiratory pressure relief or consideration of the use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Aerophagia (swallowing air) is a less common problem. It can also potentially be relieved with use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Many patients develop skin irritation, which can be helped with moleskin, available at any pharmacy.

Social stigma can be a problem. Education regarding the importance of the treatment to health is essential.

Machine noise is less of a problem with the new machine models, but if it is a problem, a white-noise device or earplugs may help.

Other measures to improve compliance are keeping the regimen simple and ensuring that family support is adequate.

Medicare requires evidence of use and benefit

Medicare requires that clinical benefit be documented between the 31st and 91st day after initiating CPAP therapy. This requires face-to-face clinical reevaluation by the treating physician to document improved symptoms and objective evidence of adherence to use of the device. The devices can store usage patterns, and Medicare requires at least 4 hours per night on 70% of nights during a consecutive 30-day period in the first 3 months of use.

ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES

Alternative therapies may be options for some patients, in particular those who cannot use CPAP or who get no benefit from it. These include oral appliances for those with mild to moderate OSA50–53 and various surgical procedures, eg, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty,54,55 maxillomanibular advancement,56 tracheostomy (standard treatment before CPAP was identified as an effective treatment),57,58 and adenotonsillectomy (in children).59

Supplemental oxygen is not a first-line treatment for OSA and in general has not been found to be very effective, particularly in terms of intermediate cardiovascular outcomes,60–62 although a subset of patients with high loop gain may benefit from it.63 Loop gain is a measure of the tendency of the ventilatory control system to amplify respiration in response to a change, conferring less stable control of breathing.

Several novel alternative therapies are starting to be used. Although all of them have been shown to improve measures of OSA, none is as effective as CPAP in improving OSA severity. New therapies include the nasal expiratory positive airway pressure device,64 oral pressure therapy,65 and hypoglossal nerve stimulation.66

References
  1. Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J, Weber S, Badr S. The occurrence of sleep-disordered breathing among middle-aged adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:12301235.
  2. Peppard PE, Young T, Barnet JH, Palta M, Hagen EW, Hla KM. Increased prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in adults. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 177:10061014.
  3. Kapur VK, Redline S, Nieto FJ, Young TB, Newman AB, Henderson JA; Sleep Heart Health Research Group. The relationship between chronically disrupted sleep and healthcare use. Sleep 2002; 25:289296.
  4. Kapur V, Blough DK, Sandblom RE, et al. The medical cost of undiagnosed sleep apnea. Sleep 1999; 22:749755.
  5. Mooe T, Rabben T, Wiklund U, Franklin KA, Eriksson P. Sleep-disordered breathing in men with coronary artery disease. Chest 1996; 109:659663.
  6. Schafer H, Koehler U, Ewig S, Hasper E, Tasci S, Luderitz B. Obstructive sleep apnea as a risk marker in coronary artery disease. Cardiology 1999; 92:7984.
  7. Leung RS, Bradley TD. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164:21472165.
  8. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Second Edition: Diagnostic and coding manual. Westchester, IL; American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2005.
  9. Somers VK, Dyken ME, Clary MP, Abboud FM. Sympathetic neural mechanisms in obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Invest 1995; 96:18971904.
  10. Mehra R. Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular disease: exploring pathophysiology and existing data. Curr Resp Med Rev 2007; 3:258269.
  11. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Kirchner HL, et al. Soluble interleukin 6 receptor: a novel marker of moderate to severe sleep-related breathing disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:17251731.
  12. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  13. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Tracy R, Jenny N, Redline S. Association of sleep disordered breathing and oxidized LDL [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181:A2474.
  14. Mehra R, Benjamin EJ, Shahar E, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study. Association of nocturnal arrhythmias with sleep-disordered breathing: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:910916.
  15. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  16. Monahan K, Storfer-Isser A, Mehra R, et al. Triggering of nocturnal arrhythmias by sleep-disordered breathing events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:17971804.
  17. Kanagala R, Murali NS, Friedman PA, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2003; 107:25892594.
  18. Patel D, Mohanty P, Di Biase L, et al. Safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein antral isolation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: the impact of continuous positive airway pressure. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2010; 3:445451.
  19. Walia H, Strohl KP, Mehra R. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on an atrial arrhythmia in a patient with mild obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 2011; 7:397398.
  20. Marin JM, Carrizo SJ, Vicente E, Agusti AG. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes in men with obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea with or without treatment with continuous positive airway pressure: an observational study. Lancet 2005; 365:10461053.
  21. Redline S, Yenokyan G, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea and incident stroke: the sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:269277.
  22. Wang H, Parker JD, Newton GE, et al. Influence of obstructive sleep apnea on mortality in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:16251631.
  23. Khayat R, Abraham W, Patt B, et al. Central sleep apnea is a predictor of cardiac readmission in hospitalized patients with systolic heart failure. J Card Fail 2012; 18:534540.
  24. Gami AS, Howard DE, Olson EJ, Somers VK. Day-night pattern of sudden death in obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:12061214.
  25. Punjabi NM, Caffo BS, Goodwin JL, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and mortality: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2009; 6( 8):e1000132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000132.
  26. Young T, Blustein J, Finn L, Palta M. Sleep-disordered breathing and motor vehicle accidents in a population-based sample of employed adults. Sleep 1997; 20:608613.
  27. Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnea: a population health perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:12171239.
  28. Lin CM, Davidson TM, Ancoli-Israel S. Gender differences in obstructive sleep apnea and treatment implications. Sleep Med Rev 2008; 12:481496.
  29. Shaher E, Redline S, Young T, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and sleep-disordered breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11861192.
  30. Young T, Finn L, Austin D, Peterson A. Menopausal status and sleep-disordered breathing in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11811185.
  31. Ancoli-Israel S, Klauber MR, Stepnowsky C, Estline E, Chinn A, Fell R. Sleep-disordered breathing in African-American elderly. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:19461949.
  32. Young T, Shahar E, Nieto FJ, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study Research Group. Predictors of sleep-disordered breathing in community-dwelling adults: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:893900.
  33. Redline S, Tishler PV, Hans MG, Tosteson TD, Strohl KP, Spry K. Racial differences in sleep-disordered breathing in African-Americans and Caucasians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:186192. Erratum in: Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:1820.
  34. Sutherland K, Lee RWW, Cistulli PA. Obesity and craniofacial structure as risk factors for obstructive sleep apnoea: impact of ethnicity. Respirology 2012; 17:213222.
  35. Schwab RJ, Gupta KB, Gefter WB, Metzger LJ, Hoffman EA, Pack AI. Upper airway and soft tissue anatomy in normal subjects and patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Significance of the lateral pharyngeal walls. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:16731689.
  36. Nieto FJ, Young TB, Lind BK, et al. Association of sleep-disordered breathing, sleep apnea, and hypertension in a large community-based study. Sleep Heart Health Study. JAMA 2000; 283:18291836.
  37. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 1991; 14:540545.
  38. Krieger J, Imbs J-L, Schmidt M, Kurtz D. Renal function in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148:13371340.
  39. Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, et al. STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:812821.
  40. Friedman M, Ibrahim H, Bass L. Clinical staging for sleep-disordered breathing. Otolaryngal Head Neck Surg 2002; 127:1321.
  41. Sleep-related breathing disorders in adults: recommendations for syndrome definition and measurement techniques in clinical research. Report of an American Academy of Sleep Medicine Task Force. Sleep 1999; 22:667689.
  42. Collop NA, Anderson WM, Boehlecke B, et al; Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical guidelines for the use of unattended portable monitors in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adult patients. Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med 2007; 3:737747.
  43. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). MLN Matters 2008. www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM6048.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2014.
  44. Peppard PE, Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J. Longitudinal study of moderate weight change and sleep-disordered breathing. JAMA 2000; 284:30153021.
  45. Guardiano SA, Scott JA, Ware JC, Schechner SA. The long-term results of gastric bypass on indexes of sleep apnea. Chest 2003; 124:16151619.
  46. Crooks PF. Surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Annu Rev Med 2006; 57:243264.
  47. Dixon JB, Schachter LM, O’Brien PE, et al. Surgical vs conventional therapy for weight loss treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 308:11421149.
  48. Bazzano LA, Khan Z, Reynolds K, He J. Effect of nocturnal nasal continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea. Hypertension 2007; 50:417423.
  49. Logan AG, Perlikowski SM, Mente A, et al. High prevalence of unrecognized sleep apnoea in drug-resistant hypertension. J Hypertens 2001; 19:22712277.
  50. Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, et al; American Academy of Sleep. Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005. Sleep 2006; 29:240243.
  51. Otsuka R, Ribeiro de Almeida F, Lowe AA, Linden W, Ryan F. The effect of oral appliance therapy on blood pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath 2006; 10:2936.
  52. Yoshida K. Effect on blood pressure of oral appliance therapy for sleep apnea syndrome. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19:6166.
  53. Inazawa T, Ayuse T, Kurata S, et al. Effect of mandibular position on upper airway collapsibility and resistance. J Dent Res 2005; 84:554558.
  54. Fujita S, Conway W, Zorick F, Roth T. Surgical correction of anatomic abnormalities in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1981; 89:923934.
  55. Schwab RJ. Imaging for the snoring and sleep apnea patient. Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45:759796.
  56. Prinsell JR. Maxillomandibular advancement surgery for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133:14891497.
  57. Thatcher GW, Maisel RH. The long-term evaluation of tracheostomy in the management of severe obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:201204.
  58. Conway WA, Victor LD, Magilligan DJ, Fujita S, Zorick FJ, Roth T. Adverse effects of tracheostomy for sleep apnea. JAMA 1981; 246:347350.
  59. Marcus CL, Moore RH, Rosen CL, et al; Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial (CHAT). A randomized trial of adenotonsillectomy for childhood sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:23662376.
  60. Gottlieb DJ, Craig SE, Lorenzi-Filho G, et al. Sleep apnea cardiovascular clinical trials-current status and steps forward: The International Collaboration of Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Trialists. Sleep 2013; 36:975980.
  61. Loredo JS, Ancoli-Israel S, Kim EJ, Lim WJ, Dimsdale JE. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure versus supplemental oxygen on sleep quality in obstructive sleep apnea: a placebo-CPAP-controlled study. Sleep 2006; 29:564571.
  62. Phillips BA, McConnell JW, Smith MD. The effects of hypoxemia on cardiac output. A dose-response curve. Chest 1988; 93:471475.
  63. Wellman A, Malhotra A, Jordan AS, Stevenson KE, Gautam S, White DP. Effect of oxygen in obstructive sleep apnea: role of loop gain. Respire Physiol Neurobiol 2008; 162:144151.
  64. Berry RB, Kryger MH, Massie CA. A novel nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep 2011; 34:479485.
  65. Colrain IM, Black J, Siegel LC, et al. A multicenter evaluation of oral pressure therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Med 2013; 14:830837.
  66. Strollo PJ Jr, Soose RJ, Maurer JT, et al; STAR Trial Group. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:139149.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Reena Mehra, MD, MS, FCCP, FAASM
Director, Sleep Disorders Research, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Reena Mehra, MD, MS, Pulmonary Medicine, A90 Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail mehrar@ccf.org

Medical Grand Rounds articles are based on edited transcripts from Division of Medicine Grand Rounds presentations at Cleveland Clinic. They are approved by the author but are not peer-reviewed.

Dr. Mehra has disclosed receiving grant and research support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and serving as a consultant on the CareCore National Advisory Board.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
479-489
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Reena Mehra, MD, MS, FCCP, FAASM
Director, Sleep Disorders Research, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Reena Mehra, MD, MS, Pulmonary Medicine, A90 Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail mehrar@ccf.org

Medical Grand Rounds articles are based on edited transcripts from Division of Medicine Grand Rounds presentations at Cleveland Clinic. They are approved by the author but are not peer-reviewed.

Dr. Mehra has disclosed receiving grant and research support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and serving as a consultant on the CareCore National Advisory Board.

Author and Disclosure Information

Reena Mehra, MD, MS, FCCP, FAASM
Director, Sleep Disorders Research, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Address: Reena Mehra, MD, MS, Pulmonary Medicine, A90 Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail mehrar@ccf.org

Medical Grand Rounds articles are based on edited transcripts from Division of Medicine Grand Rounds presentations at Cleveland Clinic. They are approved by the author but are not peer-reviewed.

Dr. Mehra has disclosed receiving grant and research support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and serving as a consultant on the CareCore National Advisory Board.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common and poorly recognized and, if untreated, leads to serious health consequences. This article discusses the epidemiology of OSA, describes common presenting signs and symptoms, and reviews diagnostic testing and treatment options. Adverse health effects related to untreated sleep apnea are also discussed.

COMMON, POORLY RECOGNIZED, AND COSTLY IF UNTREATED

OSA is very common in the general population and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. An estimated 17% of the general adult population has OSA, and the numbers are increasing with the obesity epidemic. Nearly 1 in 15 adults has at least moderate sleep apnea,1,2 and approximately 85% of cases are estimated to be undiagnosed.3 A 1999 study estimated that untreated OSA resulted in approximately $3.4 billion in additional medical costs per year in the United States,4 a figure that is likely to be higher now, given the rising prevalence of OSA. The prevalence of OSA in primary care and subspecialty clinics is even higher than in the community, as more than half of patients who have diabetes or hypertension and 30% to 40% of patients with coronary artery disease are estimated to have OSA.5–7

REPETITIVE UPPER-AIRWAY COLLAPSE

During sleep, parasympathetic activity is enhanced and the muscle tone of the upper airway is decreased, particularly in the pharyngeal dilator muscles. Still, even in the supine position, a healthy person maintains patency of the airway and adequate airflow during sleep.

OSA is characterized by repetitive complete or partial collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in an apneic or hypopneic event, respectively, and often causing snoring from upper-airway tissue vibration.

People who are susceptible to OSA typically have a smaller, more collapsible airway that is often less distensible and has a higher critical closing pressure. Radiographic and physiologic data have shown that the airway dimensions of patients with OSA are smaller than in those without OSA. The shape of the airway of a patient with OSA is often elliptical, given the extrinsic compression of the lateral aspects of the airway by increased size of the parapharyngeal fat pads. OSA episodes are characterized by closure of the upper airway and by progressively increasing respiratory efforts driven by chemoreceptor and mechanoreceptor stimuli, culminating in an arousal from sleep and a reopening of the airway.

The disease-defining metric used for assessing OSA severity is the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneas and hypopneas that occur per hour of sleep.8 An apneic or hypopneic event is identified during polysomnography by the complete cessation of airflow or by a reduction in airflow for 10 seconds or longer (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1. This polysomnogram of a 2-minute compressed window of time shows repetitive obstructive apneic events and a hypopneic event accompanied by severe oxygen desaturation (nadir, 78%) and arousals detected by encephalography that occur at the termination of the respiratory events. The patient is lying on his right side and is in N2 and N1 stages of sleep. The red arrow points to the obstructive apnea, the green arrow to the arousal, and the blue arrow to the accompanying oxygen desaturation episode. There is a delay of desaturation due to circulation time. The patient is a 47-year-old man with hypertension, asthma, excessive daytime sleepiness, snoring, witnessed apneic events, and multiple awakenings from sleep caused by cough and shortness of breath. The overall apnea-hypopnea index observed on this polysomnogram was 86 events per hour of sleep. This, along with the severe degree of hypoxia and accompanying symptoms, is consistent with the diagnosis of severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. EEG = electroencephalography; EMG = electromyography

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES IF UNTREATED

Untreated sleep apnea causes numerous pathophysiologic perturbations, including chronic intermittent hypoxia, ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, increased sympathetic nervous system activity, intrathoracic pressure swings, hypercapnea, sleep fragmentation, increased arousals, reduced sleep duration, and fragmentation of rapid-eye-movement sleep.

Intermittent hypoxia activates the sympathetic nervous system and causes pulmonary vasoconstriction, with increases in pulmonary arterial pressures and myocardial workload. Sympathetic activation, ascertained by peroneal microneurography, has been shown to be increased not only during sleep but also persisting during wakefulness in patients with untreated OSA vs those without OSA.9 Autonomic nervous system fluctuations accompany apneic episodes, resulting in enhanced parasympathetic tone and sympathetic activation associated with a rise in blood pressure and heart rate that occur after the respiratory event.

Intermediate pathways that link the negative pathophysiologic effects of OSA with adverse health outcomes include increased systemic inflammation, increased oxidative stress, metabolic dysfunction, insulin resistance, hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction, and autonomic dysfunction.

As a result, a variety of adverse clinical outcomes are associated with untreated OSA, including systemic hypertension, ischemic heart disease and atherosclerosis, diastolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, increased risk of death, and sudden death, as well as noncardiovascular outcomes such as gout, neurocognitive deficits, and mood disorders.10

 

 

Inflammatory and atherogenic effects

Increased levels of markers of systemic inflammation, prothrombosis, and oxidative stress have been observed in OSA and may be key pathophysiologic links between OSA and cardiovascular sequelae. OSA has been associated with up-regulation of a number of inflammatory mediators: interleukin (IL) 6, soluble IL-6 receptor, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and C-reactive protein. Soluble IL-6 levels in particular are higher in people who have sleep-disordered breathing, as reflected by the apnea-hypopnea index independent of obesity, with relationships stronger in the morning than in the evening. This likely reflects the overnight OSA-related physiologic stress.11

Thrombotic potential is also enhanced, with higher levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, fibrinogen, P-selectin, and vascular endothelial growth factor. Some of these factors normally have a diurnal cycle, with higher levels in the morning, but in OSA, increasing OSA severity is associated with increased prothrombotic potential in the morning hours. Of interest, levels of these substances showed a plateau effect, rising in people who had only mildly elevated apnea-hypopnea indices and then leveling off.12 Intermittent hypoxia followed by ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, characteristic of sleep apnea, provides the ideal environment for augmentation of oxidative stress, with evidence of increased oxidation of serum proteins and lipids. Hypoxia and oxygen-derived free radicals may result in cardiac myocyte injury. Experimental data demonstrate that intermittent hypoxia combined with a high-fat diet results in synergistic acceleration of evidence of atherogenic lesions.

Patients with OSA also have evidence of endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, all pathways that can facilitate the progression of atherosclerosis in OSA.13–15

Cardiac arrhythmias

In the Sleep Heart Health Study, a multicenter epidemiologic study designed to examine the relationships of OSA and cardiovascular outcomes, those who had moderate to severe OSA had a risk of ventricular and atrial arrhythmias two to four times higher than those without OSA, even after correction for the confounding influences of obesity and underlying cardiovascular risk.14 These findings were corroborated in subsequent work highlighting monotonic dose-response relationships with increasing OSA severity and increased odds of atrial and ventricular arrhythmia in a cohort of about 3,000 older men.11 Additional compelling evidence of a causal relationship is that the risk of discrete arrhythmic events is markedly increased after a respiratory disturbance in sleep.16

In patients who successfully underwent cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, those who had sleep apnea but were not treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) had a much higher rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation during the subsequent year than those with CPAP-treated sleep apnea and than controls never diagnosed with sleep apnea. In the untreated patients with sleep apnea, the mean nocturnal fall in oxygen saturation was significantly greater in those who had recurrence of atrial fibrillation than in those who did not, suggesting hypoxia as an important mechanism contributing to atrial fibrillation.17

Since then, several other retrospective studies have shown similar findings after pulmonary vein antrum isolation and ablation in terms of reduction of atrial fibrillation recurrence with CPAP treatment in OSA.18

Walia et al19 described a patient with moderate sleep apnea who underwent a split-night study. During the baseline part of the study, the patient had about 18 ectopic beats per minute. During the second portion of the study while CPAP was applied, progressively fewer ectopic beats occurred as airway pressure was increased until a normal rhythm without ectopic beats was achieved at the goal treatment CPAP pressure setting.

Cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death

Marin et al20 followed about 1,500 men for 10 years, including some who had severe OSA, some with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP, and controls. The risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular disease events was nearly three times higher in those with severe disease than in healthy participants. Those treated with CPAP had a risk approximately the same as in the control group.

The Sleep Heart Study followed approximately 6,000 people with untreated sleep apnea for a median of nearly 9 years. It found a significant association between the apnea-hypopnea index and ischemic stroke, especially in men.21 Survival in patients with heart failure is also associated with the degree of OSA; patients with more severe disease (an apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15) have a nearly three times greater risk of death than those with no disease or only mild disease (apnea-hypopnea index < 15).22

From the standpoint of health care utilization, findings that central sleep apnea predicts an increased risk of hospital readmission in heart failure are of particular interest.23

People with OSA are at increased risk of nocturnal sudden cardiac death.24 Sleep apnea is also associated with an increased overall death rate, and the higher the apnea-hypopnea index, the higher the death rate,25 even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and underlying cardiovascular risk, with findings most pronounced in men under age 70.

Motor vehicle accidents

The need for caution during driving should be discussed with every patient, as motor vehicle accidents are an immediate danger to the patient and others. The association with motor vehicle accidents is independent of sleepiness, and drivers with sleep apnea often do not perceive performance impairment. Young et al26 found that men who snored were 3.4 times as likely to have an accident over a 5-year period, and that men and women with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 15 were more than 7 times as likely to have multiple accidents over a 5-year period, highlighting the importance of discussing, documenting, and expeditiously diagnosing and treating OSA, particularly in those who report drowsiness while driving.

CLINICAL RISK FACTORS

Risk factors can be divided into nonmodifiable and modifiable ones.

Nonmodifiable factors

Age. Bimodal distributions in OSA prevalence have been observed; ie, that the pediatric population and people who are middle-aged have the highest prevalence of OSA. A linear relationship between sleep apnea prevalence and age until about age 65 was identified in data from the Sleep Heart Health Study.27 After that, the prevalence rates plateau; it is unclear if this is secondary to natural remission of the disease after a certain age or because patients with more severe disease have died by that age (ie, survivorship bias), blunting an increase in prevalence.

Sex. Men develop sleep apnea at a rate three to five times that of women. Several explanations have been proposed to account for this.28,29 Sex hormones are one factor; women with sleep apnea on hormone replacement therapy have a significantly less-severe sleep apnea burden than other postmenopausal women,30 suggesting a positive effect from estrogen. Sex-based differences in fat distribution, length and collapsibility of the upper airway, genioglossal activity, neurochemical control mechanisms, and arousal response may also contribute to prevalence differences between men and women.

As with coronary artery disease, the presentation of sleep apnea may be atypical in women, particularly around menopause. Sleep apnea should be considered in women who have snoring and daytime sleepiness.

Race. Whites, African Americans, and Asians have a similar prevalence of sleep apnea, but groups differ in obesity rates and craniofacial anatomy.31–34 Asians tend to have craniofacial skeletal restriction. African Americans are more likely to have upper-airway soft-tissue risk and to develop more severe OSA. Whites tend to have both craniofacial and soft-tissue risk. For those with craniofacial anatomy predisposing to OSA, even mild obesity can make it manifest.

Syndromes that predispose to OSA can include craniofacial structural abnormalities, connective tissue problems, or alterations in ventilatory control (eg, Marfan, Down, and Pierre Robin syndromes).

 

 

Modifiable risk factors

Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) is a firmly established risk factor, but not all obese patients develop obstructive sleep apnea, and not all people with sleep apnea are obese.

Obesity increases risk by altering the geometry and function of the upper airway, increasing collapsibility. The changes are particularly pronounced in the lateral aspects of the pharynx.35

Obesity also affects respiratory drive, likely in part from leptin resistance. Load compensation is another contributing factor: the increased mass in the thorax and abdomen increases the work of breathing and reduces functional residual capacity, increasing oxygen demands and leading to atelectasis and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

Although obesity is an important risk factor, it is important to recognize that obesity is not the only one to consider: most people with an apnea-hypopnea index of 5 or greater are not obese. The relationship between body mass index and sleep apnea is weaker in children and in the elderly, probably because other risk factors are more pronounced.36

Craniofacial structural abnormalities such as retrognathia (abnormal posterior position of the mandible) and micrognathia (undersized mandible) can increase the risk of OSA because of a resulting posteriorly displaced genioglossus muscle. Other conditions can alter chemosensitivity, affecting the pH and carbon dioxide level of the blood and therefore affecting ventilatory control mechanisms, making the person more prone to developing sleep apnea. Children and young adults may have tonsillar tissue that obstructs the airway.

The site of obstruction can be behind the palate (retropalatal), behind the tongue (retroglossal), or below the pharynx (hypopharyngeal). This helps explain why positive air way pressure—unlike surgery, which addresses a specific area—is often successful, as it serves to splint or treat all aspects of the airway.

FATIGUE, SLEEPINESS, SNORING, RESTLESS SLEEP

Sleep apnea can result in presentation of multiple signs and symptoms (Table 1).

Daytime sleepiness and fatigue are the most common symptoms. Although nonspecific, they are often quite pronounced. Two short questionnaires—the Epworth Sleepiness Scale37 and the Fatigue Severity Scale—can help distinguish between these two symptoms and assess their impact on a patient’s daily life. In the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the patient rates his or her chance of dozing on a 4-point scale (0 = would never doze, to 3 = high chance of dozing) in eight situations:

  • Sitting and reading
  • Watching television
  • Sitting inactive in a public place
  • As a passenger in a car for an hour without a break
  • Lying down to rest in the afternoon
  • Sitting and talking to someone
  • Sitting quietly after a lunch without alcohol
  • In a car while stopped for a few minutes in traffic.

A score of 10 or more is consistent with significant subjective sleepiness.

The Fatigue Severity Scale assesses the impact of fatigue on daily living.

Snoring is a common and specific symptom of sleep apnea; however, not all patients who snore have OSA.

Restlessness during sleep is very common—patients may disturb their bed partner by moving around a lot during sleep or report that the sheets are “all over the place” by morning.

Nocturia can also be a sign of sleep apnea and can contribute to sleep fragmentation. A proposed mechanism of this symptom includes alterations of intrathoracic pressure resulting in atrial stretch, which release atrial natriuretic peptide, leading to nocturia. Treating with CPAP has been found to reduce levels of atrial natriuretic peptide, contributing to better sleep.38

Morning headache may occur and is likely related to increased CO2 levels, which appear to culminate in the morning hours. End-tidal or transcutaneous CO2 monitoring during polysomnography can help elucidate the presence of sleep-related hypoventilation.

Libido is often diminished and can actually be improved with CPAP. This is therefore an important point to discuss with patients, as improved libido can often serve as an incentive for adherence to OSA treatment.

Insomnia exists in about 15% of patients, primarily as a result of sleep apnea-related with treatment.

Sweating, particularly forehead sweating associated with sleep apnea, more commonly occurs in children.

The STOP-BANG questionnaire (Table 2)39 was primarily validated in preoperative anesthesia testing. However, because of its ease of use and favorable performance characteristics, it is increasingly used to predict the likelihood of finding OSA before polysomnography. A score of 3 or more has a sensitivity of 93%.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION PROVIDES CLUES

Although the physical examination may be normal, certain findings indicate risk (Table 3). Obesity alone is not an accepted indication for polysomnography unless there are concomitant worrisome signs or symptoms. Of note, those who are morbidly obese (BMI > 40 kg/m2) have a prevalence of sleep apnea greater than 70%.

The classification by Friedman et al40 provides an indicator of risk. The patient is examined with the mouth opened wide and the tongue in a neutral natural position. Grades:

  • I—Entire uvula and tonsils are visible
  • II—Entire uvula is visible, but tonsils are not
  • III—Soft palate is visible, but uvula is not
  • IV—Only the hard palate is visible.

Especially in children and young adults, enlarged tonsils (or “kissing tonsils”) and a boggy edematous uvula set the stage for obstructive sleep apnea.

 

 

DIAGNOSIS REQUIRES SLEEP TESTING

A sleep study is the primary means of diagnosing OSA. Polysomnography includes electrooculography to determine when rapid-eye-movement sleep occurs; electromyography to measure muscle activity in the chin to help determine onset of sleep, with peripheral leads in the leg to measure leg movements; electroencephalography (EEG) to measure neural activity; electrocardiography; pulse oximetry to measure oxygen saturation; measurement of oronasal flow; and measurements of chest wall effort and body position using thoracic and abdominal belts that expand and contract with breathing; and audio recording to detect snoring.

Attended polysomnography requires the constant presence of a trained sleep technologist to monitor for technical issues and patient adherence.

End-tidal CO2 monitoring is a reasonable method to detect sleep-related hypoventilation but is not routinely performed in the United States. Transcutaneous CO2 monitoring is a different way to monitor CO2 used in the setting of positive airway pressure.

Polysomnography in a normal patient shows a regular pattern of increasing and decreasing airflow with inspiration and expiration while stable oxygen saturation is maintained.

In contrast, polysomnography of a patient with sleep apnea shows repetitive periods of no airflow, oxygen desaturation, and often evidence of thoracoabdominal paradox, punctuated by arousals on EEG associated with sympathetic activation (Figure 1). When the patient falls asleep, upper-airway muscle tone is reduced, causing an apneic event with hypoxia and pleural pressure swings. These prompt arousals with sympathetic activation that reestablish upper-airway muscle tone, allowing ventilation and reoxygenation to resume with a return to sleep.

Apnea-hypopnea index indicates severity

Sleep apnea severity is graded using the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneic and hypopneic events per hour of sleep (Table 4).41 Events must last at least 10 seconds to be considered, ie, two consecutive missed breaths based on an average normal respiratory rate of about 12 breaths per minute for the typical adult.

The apnea-hypopnea index usually correlates with the severity of oxygen desaturation and with electrocardiographic abnormalities, including tachybradycardia and arrhythmias.

Although history, physical examination, and prediction tools are helpful in determining the likelihood that a patient has OSA, only polysomnography testing can establish the diagnosis. To diagnose OSA, 15 or more obstructive events per hour must be observed by polysomnography, or at least 5 events per hour with one of the following:

  • Daytime sleepiness, sleep attacks, unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, or insomnia
  • Waking with breath-holding, gasping, or choking
  • Observer-reported loud snoring or breathing interruptions.41

Split-night study determines diagnosis and optimum treatment

The split-night study has two parts: the first is diagnostic polysomnography, followed by identification of the positive airway pressure that optimally treats the sleep apnea. The apnea-hypopnea index guides the need for the split-night study, with 40 being the established threshold according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

A home sleep study is appropriate for some patients

Home sleep testing is typically more limited than standard polysomnography; it monitors airflow, effort, and oxygenation. The test is intended for adults with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (STOP-BANG score ≥ 3). It is not intended for screening of asymptomatic patients or for those with coexisting sleep disorders (eg, central sleep apnea, sleep hypoventilation, periodic limb movements, insomnia, circadian rhythm disorders, parasomnias, narcolepsy) or medical disorders (eg, moderate to severe heart failure or other cardiac disease, symptomatic neurologic disease, moderate to severe pulmonary disease).42 Since March 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has covered CPAP for obstructive sleep apnea based on diagnosis by home sleep study testing.43

TREATMENT OF SLEEP APNEA

Basic steps for reducing OSA are:

Weight loss. Even small weight changes can significantly affect the severity of sleep apnea, perhaps even leading to a reassessment of the degree of OSA and CPAP requirements. Longitudinal epidemiologic data demonstrate that a 10% weight loss correlates with a 26% reduction in the apnea-hypopnea index, and conversely, a 10% weight gain is associated with a 32% increase.44

Some studies have found that bariatric surgery cures OSA in 75% to 88% of cases, independent of approach.45,46 However, a trial in 60 obese patients with OSA who were randomized to either a low-calorie diet or bariatric surgery found no statistical difference in the apnea-hypopnea index between the two groups despite greater weight loss in the surgery group.47

Avoiding certain medications. Benzodiazepines, narcotics, and alcohol reduce upper airway muscle tone and should be avoided. No medications are associated with improvement of OSA, although acetazolamide may be used to treat central sleep apnea.

Positional therapy. Sleeping on the back exacerbates the problem. Supine-related OSA occurs as a result of several factors, including gravity, airway anatomy, airway critical closing pressures, and effects on upper-airway dilator muscle function.

Sleep hygiene. General recommendations to engage in behaviors to promote sleep are recommended, including keeping consistent sleep-wake times, not watching television in bed, and avoidance of caffeine intake, particularly within 4 to 6 hours of bedtime.

POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE THERAPY

Nasal CPAP is the treatment of choice and is successful in 95% of patients when used consistently. It is not as costly as surgery, and results in improved long-term survival compared with uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Another advantage is that the pressure can be retitrated as the patient’s condition changes, for example after a weight change or during pregnancy.

More than 15 randomized controlled trials have examined the effect of sleep apnea treatment with CPAP compared with either sham CPAP or another control. In a meta-analysis, CPAP was found to lead to an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 2.5 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure reduction of 1.8 mm Hg. Although these reductions may seem negligible, benefits may be significant for cardiovascular outcomes.48,49

Challenges to treatment adherence

Adherence is the most commonly discussed problem with CPAP, but long-term adherence rates are comparable to medication compliance—about 60% to 70%. To optimize adherence, communication is important to ensure that problems are identified and addressed as they arise. Showing patients examples of apneic events and oxygen desaturation from their sleep study can enhance their understanding of OSA and its importance. Patients need to understand the serious nature of the disease and that CPAP therapy can significantly improve their quality of life and overall health, particularly from a cardiovascular perspective.

CPAP masks can be uncomfortable, posing a major barrier to compliance. But a number of mask designs are available, such as the nasal mask, the nasal pillow mask, and the oronasal mask. For patients with claustrophobia, the nasal pillow mask is an option, as it does not cover the face.

Some patients note symptoms of nasal congestion, although in many patients CPAP improves it. If congestion is a problem, the use of heated humidification with the machine, intranasal saline or gel, or nasal corticosteroids can help relieve it.

Pressure intolerance is a common problem. For those who feel that the pressure is too high, settings can be adjusted so that the pressure is gradually reduced between inspiration and expiration, ie, the use of expiratory pressure relief or consideration of the use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Aerophagia (swallowing air) is a less common problem. It can also potentially be relieved with use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Many patients develop skin irritation, which can be helped with moleskin, available at any pharmacy.

Social stigma can be a problem. Education regarding the importance of the treatment to health is essential.

Machine noise is less of a problem with the new machine models, but if it is a problem, a white-noise device or earplugs may help.

Other measures to improve compliance are keeping the regimen simple and ensuring that family support is adequate.

Medicare requires evidence of use and benefit

Medicare requires that clinical benefit be documented between the 31st and 91st day after initiating CPAP therapy. This requires face-to-face clinical reevaluation by the treating physician to document improved symptoms and objective evidence of adherence to use of the device. The devices can store usage patterns, and Medicare requires at least 4 hours per night on 70% of nights during a consecutive 30-day period in the first 3 months of use.

ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES

Alternative therapies may be options for some patients, in particular those who cannot use CPAP or who get no benefit from it. These include oral appliances for those with mild to moderate OSA50–53 and various surgical procedures, eg, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty,54,55 maxillomanibular advancement,56 tracheostomy (standard treatment before CPAP was identified as an effective treatment),57,58 and adenotonsillectomy (in children).59

Supplemental oxygen is not a first-line treatment for OSA and in general has not been found to be very effective, particularly in terms of intermediate cardiovascular outcomes,60–62 although a subset of patients with high loop gain may benefit from it.63 Loop gain is a measure of the tendency of the ventilatory control system to amplify respiration in response to a change, conferring less stable control of breathing.

Several novel alternative therapies are starting to be used. Although all of them have been shown to improve measures of OSA, none is as effective as CPAP in improving OSA severity. New therapies include the nasal expiratory positive airway pressure device,64 oral pressure therapy,65 and hypoglossal nerve stimulation.66

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common and poorly recognized and, if untreated, leads to serious health consequences. This article discusses the epidemiology of OSA, describes common presenting signs and symptoms, and reviews diagnostic testing and treatment options. Adverse health effects related to untreated sleep apnea are also discussed.

COMMON, POORLY RECOGNIZED, AND COSTLY IF UNTREATED

OSA is very common in the general population and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. An estimated 17% of the general adult population has OSA, and the numbers are increasing with the obesity epidemic. Nearly 1 in 15 adults has at least moderate sleep apnea,1,2 and approximately 85% of cases are estimated to be undiagnosed.3 A 1999 study estimated that untreated OSA resulted in approximately $3.4 billion in additional medical costs per year in the United States,4 a figure that is likely to be higher now, given the rising prevalence of OSA. The prevalence of OSA in primary care and subspecialty clinics is even higher than in the community, as more than half of patients who have diabetes or hypertension and 30% to 40% of patients with coronary artery disease are estimated to have OSA.5–7

REPETITIVE UPPER-AIRWAY COLLAPSE

During sleep, parasympathetic activity is enhanced and the muscle tone of the upper airway is decreased, particularly in the pharyngeal dilator muscles. Still, even in the supine position, a healthy person maintains patency of the airway and adequate airflow during sleep.

OSA is characterized by repetitive complete or partial collapse of the upper airway during sleep, resulting in an apneic or hypopneic event, respectively, and often causing snoring from upper-airway tissue vibration.

People who are susceptible to OSA typically have a smaller, more collapsible airway that is often less distensible and has a higher critical closing pressure. Radiographic and physiologic data have shown that the airway dimensions of patients with OSA are smaller than in those without OSA. The shape of the airway of a patient with OSA is often elliptical, given the extrinsic compression of the lateral aspects of the airway by increased size of the parapharyngeal fat pads. OSA episodes are characterized by closure of the upper airway and by progressively increasing respiratory efforts driven by chemoreceptor and mechanoreceptor stimuli, culminating in an arousal from sleep and a reopening of the airway.

The disease-defining metric used for assessing OSA severity is the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneas and hypopneas that occur per hour of sleep.8 An apneic or hypopneic event is identified during polysomnography by the complete cessation of airflow or by a reduction in airflow for 10 seconds or longer (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1. This polysomnogram of a 2-minute compressed window of time shows repetitive obstructive apneic events and a hypopneic event accompanied by severe oxygen desaturation (nadir, 78%) and arousals detected by encephalography that occur at the termination of the respiratory events. The patient is lying on his right side and is in N2 and N1 stages of sleep. The red arrow points to the obstructive apnea, the green arrow to the arousal, and the blue arrow to the accompanying oxygen desaturation episode. There is a delay of desaturation due to circulation time. The patient is a 47-year-old man with hypertension, asthma, excessive daytime sleepiness, snoring, witnessed apneic events, and multiple awakenings from sleep caused by cough and shortness of breath. The overall apnea-hypopnea index observed on this polysomnogram was 86 events per hour of sleep. This, along with the severe degree of hypoxia and accompanying symptoms, is consistent with the diagnosis of severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. EEG = electroencephalography; EMG = electromyography

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES IF UNTREATED

Untreated sleep apnea causes numerous pathophysiologic perturbations, including chronic intermittent hypoxia, ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, increased sympathetic nervous system activity, intrathoracic pressure swings, hypercapnea, sleep fragmentation, increased arousals, reduced sleep duration, and fragmentation of rapid-eye-movement sleep.

Intermittent hypoxia activates the sympathetic nervous system and causes pulmonary vasoconstriction, with increases in pulmonary arterial pressures and myocardial workload. Sympathetic activation, ascertained by peroneal microneurography, has been shown to be increased not only during sleep but also persisting during wakefulness in patients with untreated OSA vs those without OSA.9 Autonomic nervous system fluctuations accompany apneic episodes, resulting in enhanced parasympathetic tone and sympathetic activation associated with a rise in blood pressure and heart rate that occur after the respiratory event.

Intermediate pathways that link the negative pathophysiologic effects of OSA with adverse health outcomes include increased systemic inflammation, increased oxidative stress, metabolic dysfunction, insulin resistance, hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction, and autonomic dysfunction.

As a result, a variety of adverse clinical outcomes are associated with untreated OSA, including systemic hypertension, ischemic heart disease and atherosclerosis, diastolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, increased risk of death, and sudden death, as well as noncardiovascular outcomes such as gout, neurocognitive deficits, and mood disorders.10

 

 

Inflammatory and atherogenic effects

Increased levels of markers of systemic inflammation, prothrombosis, and oxidative stress have been observed in OSA and may be key pathophysiologic links between OSA and cardiovascular sequelae. OSA has been associated with up-regulation of a number of inflammatory mediators: interleukin (IL) 6, soluble IL-6 receptor, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and C-reactive protein. Soluble IL-6 levels in particular are higher in people who have sleep-disordered breathing, as reflected by the apnea-hypopnea index independent of obesity, with relationships stronger in the morning than in the evening. This likely reflects the overnight OSA-related physiologic stress.11

Thrombotic potential is also enhanced, with higher levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, fibrinogen, P-selectin, and vascular endothelial growth factor. Some of these factors normally have a diurnal cycle, with higher levels in the morning, but in OSA, increasing OSA severity is associated with increased prothrombotic potential in the morning hours. Of interest, levels of these substances showed a plateau effect, rising in people who had only mildly elevated apnea-hypopnea indices and then leveling off.12 Intermittent hypoxia followed by ventilatory overshoot hyperoxia, characteristic of sleep apnea, provides the ideal environment for augmentation of oxidative stress, with evidence of increased oxidation of serum proteins and lipids. Hypoxia and oxygen-derived free radicals may result in cardiac myocyte injury. Experimental data demonstrate that intermittent hypoxia combined with a high-fat diet results in synergistic acceleration of evidence of atherogenic lesions.

Patients with OSA also have evidence of endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, all pathways that can facilitate the progression of atherosclerosis in OSA.13–15

Cardiac arrhythmias

In the Sleep Heart Health Study, a multicenter epidemiologic study designed to examine the relationships of OSA and cardiovascular outcomes, those who had moderate to severe OSA had a risk of ventricular and atrial arrhythmias two to four times higher than those without OSA, even after correction for the confounding influences of obesity and underlying cardiovascular risk.14 These findings were corroborated in subsequent work highlighting monotonic dose-response relationships with increasing OSA severity and increased odds of atrial and ventricular arrhythmia in a cohort of about 3,000 older men.11 Additional compelling evidence of a causal relationship is that the risk of discrete arrhythmic events is markedly increased after a respiratory disturbance in sleep.16

In patients who successfully underwent cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, those who had sleep apnea but were not treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) had a much higher rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation during the subsequent year than those with CPAP-treated sleep apnea and than controls never diagnosed with sleep apnea. In the untreated patients with sleep apnea, the mean nocturnal fall in oxygen saturation was significantly greater in those who had recurrence of atrial fibrillation than in those who did not, suggesting hypoxia as an important mechanism contributing to atrial fibrillation.17

Since then, several other retrospective studies have shown similar findings after pulmonary vein antrum isolation and ablation in terms of reduction of atrial fibrillation recurrence with CPAP treatment in OSA.18

Walia et al19 described a patient with moderate sleep apnea who underwent a split-night study. During the baseline part of the study, the patient had about 18 ectopic beats per minute. During the second portion of the study while CPAP was applied, progressively fewer ectopic beats occurred as airway pressure was increased until a normal rhythm without ectopic beats was achieved at the goal treatment CPAP pressure setting.

Cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death

Marin et al20 followed about 1,500 men for 10 years, including some who had severe OSA, some with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP, and controls. The risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular disease events was nearly three times higher in those with severe disease than in healthy participants. Those treated with CPAP had a risk approximately the same as in the control group.

The Sleep Heart Study followed approximately 6,000 people with untreated sleep apnea for a median of nearly 9 years. It found a significant association between the apnea-hypopnea index and ischemic stroke, especially in men.21 Survival in patients with heart failure is also associated with the degree of OSA; patients with more severe disease (an apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15) have a nearly three times greater risk of death than those with no disease or only mild disease (apnea-hypopnea index < 15).22

From the standpoint of health care utilization, findings that central sleep apnea predicts an increased risk of hospital readmission in heart failure are of particular interest.23

People with OSA are at increased risk of nocturnal sudden cardiac death.24 Sleep apnea is also associated with an increased overall death rate, and the higher the apnea-hypopnea index, the higher the death rate,25 even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and underlying cardiovascular risk, with findings most pronounced in men under age 70.

Motor vehicle accidents

The need for caution during driving should be discussed with every patient, as motor vehicle accidents are an immediate danger to the patient and others. The association with motor vehicle accidents is independent of sleepiness, and drivers with sleep apnea often do not perceive performance impairment. Young et al26 found that men who snored were 3.4 times as likely to have an accident over a 5-year period, and that men and women with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 15 were more than 7 times as likely to have multiple accidents over a 5-year period, highlighting the importance of discussing, documenting, and expeditiously diagnosing and treating OSA, particularly in those who report drowsiness while driving.

CLINICAL RISK FACTORS

Risk factors can be divided into nonmodifiable and modifiable ones.

Nonmodifiable factors

Age. Bimodal distributions in OSA prevalence have been observed; ie, that the pediatric population and people who are middle-aged have the highest prevalence of OSA. A linear relationship between sleep apnea prevalence and age until about age 65 was identified in data from the Sleep Heart Health Study.27 After that, the prevalence rates plateau; it is unclear if this is secondary to natural remission of the disease after a certain age or because patients with more severe disease have died by that age (ie, survivorship bias), blunting an increase in prevalence.

Sex. Men develop sleep apnea at a rate three to five times that of women. Several explanations have been proposed to account for this.28,29 Sex hormones are one factor; women with sleep apnea on hormone replacement therapy have a significantly less-severe sleep apnea burden than other postmenopausal women,30 suggesting a positive effect from estrogen. Sex-based differences in fat distribution, length and collapsibility of the upper airway, genioglossal activity, neurochemical control mechanisms, and arousal response may also contribute to prevalence differences between men and women.

As with coronary artery disease, the presentation of sleep apnea may be atypical in women, particularly around menopause. Sleep apnea should be considered in women who have snoring and daytime sleepiness.

Race. Whites, African Americans, and Asians have a similar prevalence of sleep apnea, but groups differ in obesity rates and craniofacial anatomy.31–34 Asians tend to have craniofacial skeletal restriction. African Americans are more likely to have upper-airway soft-tissue risk and to develop more severe OSA. Whites tend to have both craniofacial and soft-tissue risk. For those with craniofacial anatomy predisposing to OSA, even mild obesity can make it manifest.

Syndromes that predispose to OSA can include craniofacial structural abnormalities, connective tissue problems, or alterations in ventilatory control (eg, Marfan, Down, and Pierre Robin syndromes).

 

 

Modifiable risk factors

Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) is a firmly established risk factor, but not all obese patients develop obstructive sleep apnea, and not all people with sleep apnea are obese.

Obesity increases risk by altering the geometry and function of the upper airway, increasing collapsibility. The changes are particularly pronounced in the lateral aspects of the pharynx.35

Obesity also affects respiratory drive, likely in part from leptin resistance. Load compensation is another contributing factor: the increased mass in the thorax and abdomen increases the work of breathing and reduces functional residual capacity, increasing oxygen demands and leading to atelectasis and ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

Although obesity is an important risk factor, it is important to recognize that obesity is not the only one to consider: most people with an apnea-hypopnea index of 5 or greater are not obese. The relationship between body mass index and sleep apnea is weaker in children and in the elderly, probably because other risk factors are more pronounced.36

Craniofacial structural abnormalities such as retrognathia (abnormal posterior position of the mandible) and micrognathia (undersized mandible) can increase the risk of OSA because of a resulting posteriorly displaced genioglossus muscle. Other conditions can alter chemosensitivity, affecting the pH and carbon dioxide level of the blood and therefore affecting ventilatory control mechanisms, making the person more prone to developing sleep apnea. Children and young adults may have tonsillar tissue that obstructs the airway.

The site of obstruction can be behind the palate (retropalatal), behind the tongue (retroglossal), or below the pharynx (hypopharyngeal). This helps explain why positive air way pressure—unlike surgery, which addresses a specific area—is often successful, as it serves to splint or treat all aspects of the airway.

FATIGUE, SLEEPINESS, SNORING, RESTLESS SLEEP

Sleep apnea can result in presentation of multiple signs and symptoms (Table 1).

Daytime sleepiness and fatigue are the most common symptoms. Although nonspecific, they are often quite pronounced. Two short questionnaires—the Epworth Sleepiness Scale37 and the Fatigue Severity Scale—can help distinguish between these two symptoms and assess their impact on a patient’s daily life. In the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the patient rates his or her chance of dozing on a 4-point scale (0 = would never doze, to 3 = high chance of dozing) in eight situations:

  • Sitting and reading
  • Watching television
  • Sitting inactive in a public place
  • As a passenger in a car for an hour without a break
  • Lying down to rest in the afternoon
  • Sitting and talking to someone
  • Sitting quietly after a lunch without alcohol
  • In a car while stopped for a few minutes in traffic.

A score of 10 or more is consistent with significant subjective sleepiness.

The Fatigue Severity Scale assesses the impact of fatigue on daily living.

Snoring is a common and specific symptom of sleep apnea; however, not all patients who snore have OSA.

Restlessness during sleep is very common—patients may disturb their bed partner by moving around a lot during sleep or report that the sheets are “all over the place” by morning.

Nocturia can also be a sign of sleep apnea and can contribute to sleep fragmentation. A proposed mechanism of this symptom includes alterations of intrathoracic pressure resulting in atrial stretch, which release atrial natriuretic peptide, leading to nocturia. Treating with CPAP has been found to reduce levels of atrial natriuretic peptide, contributing to better sleep.38

Morning headache may occur and is likely related to increased CO2 levels, which appear to culminate in the morning hours. End-tidal or transcutaneous CO2 monitoring during polysomnography can help elucidate the presence of sleep-related hypoventilation.

Libido is often diminished and can actually be improved with CPAP. This is therefore an important point to discuss with patients, as improved libido can often serve as an incentive for adherence to OSA treatment.

Insomnia exists in about 15% of patients, primarily as a result of sleep apnea-related with treatment.

Sweating, particularly forehead sweating associated with sleep apnea, more commonly occurs in children.

The STOP-BANG questionnaire (Table 2)39 was primarily validated in preoperative anesthesia testing. However, because of its ease of use and favorable performance characteristics, it is increasingly used to predict the likelihood of finding OSA before polysomnography. A score of 3 or more has a sensitivity of 93%.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION PROVIDES CLUES

Although the physical examination may be normal, certain findings indicate risk (Table 3). Obesity alone is not an accepted indication for polysomnography unless there are concomitant worrisome signs or symptoms. Of note, those who are morbidly obese (BMI > 40 kg/m2) have a prevalence of sleep apnea greater than 70%.

The classification by Friedman et al40 provides an indicator of risk. The patient is examined with the mouth opened wide and the tongue in a neutral natural position. Grades:

  • I—Entire uvula and tonsils are visible
  • II—Entire uvula is visible, but tonsils are not
  • III—Soft palate is visible, but uvula is not
  • IV—Only the hard palate is visible.

Especially in children and young adults, enlarged tonsils (or “kissing tonsils”) and a boggy edematous uvula set the stage for obstructive sleep apnea.

 

 

DIAGNOSIS REQUIRES SLEEP TESTING

A sleep study is the primary means of diagnosing OSA. Polysomnography includes electrooculography to determine when rapid-eye-movement sleep occurs; electromyography to measure muscle activity in the chin to help determine onset of sleep, with peripheral leads in the leg to measure leg movements; electroencephalography (EEG) to measure neural activity; electrocardiography; pulse oximetry to measure oxygen saturation; measurement of oronasal flow; and measurements of chest wall effort and body position using thoracic and abdominal belts that expand and contract with breathing; and audio recording to detect snoring.

Attended polysomnography requires the constant presence of a trained sleep technologist to monitor for technical issues and patient adherence.

End-tidal CO2 monitoring is a reasonable method to detect sleep-related hypoventilation but is not routinely performed in the United States. Transcutaneous CO2 monitoring is a different way to monitor CO2 used in the setting of positive airway pressure.

Polysomnography in a normal patient shows a regular pattern of increasing and decreasing airflow with inspiration and expiration while stable oxygen saturation is maintained.

In contrast, polysomnography of a patient with sleep apnea shows repetitive periods of no airflow, oxygen desaturation, and often evidence of thoracoabdominal paradox, punctuated by arousals on EEG associated with sympathetic activation (Figure 1). When the patient falls asleep, upper-airway muscle tone is reduced, causing an apneic event with hypoxia and pleural pressure swings. These prompt arousals with sympathetic activation that reestablish upper-airway muscle tone, allowing ventilation and reoxygenation to resume with a return to sleep.

Apnea-hypopnea index indicates severity

Sleep apnea severity is graded using the apnea-hypopnea index, ie, the number of apneic and hypopneic events per hour of sleep (Table 4).41 Events must last at least 10 seconds to be considered, ie, two consecutive missed breaths based on an average normal respiratory rate of about 12 breaths per minute for the typical adult.

The apnea-hypopnea index usually correlates with the severity of oxygen desaturation and with electrocardiographic abnormalities, including tachybradycardia and arrhythmias.

Although history, physical examination, and prediction tools are helpful in determining the likelihood that a patient has OSA, only polysomnography testing can establish the diagnosis. To diagnose OSA, 15 or more obstructive events per hour must be observed by polysomnography, or at least 5 events per hour with one of the following:

  • Daytime sleepiness, sleep attacks, unrefreshing sleep, fatigue, or insomnia
  • Waking with breath-holding, gasping, or choking
  • Observer-reported loud snoring or breathing interruptions.41

Split-night study determines diagnosis and optimum treatment

The split-night study has two parts: the first is diagnostic polysomnography, followed by identification of the positive airway pressure that optimally treats the sleep apnea. The apnea-hypopnea index guides the need for the split-night study, with 40 being the established threshold according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

A home sleep study is appropriate for some patients

Home sleep testing is typically more limited than standard polysomnography; it monitors airflow, effort, and oxygenation. The test is intended for adults with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (STOP-BANG score ≥ 3). It is not intended for screening of asymptomatic patients or for those with coexisting sleep disorders (eg, central sleep apnea, sleep hypoventilation, periodic limb movements, insomnia, circadian rhythm disorders, parasomnias, narcolepsy) or medical disorders (eg, moderate to severe heart failure or other cardiac disease, symptomatic neurologic disease, moderate to severe pulmonary disease).42 Since March 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has covered CPAP for obstructive sleep apnea based on diagnosis by home sleep study testing.43

TREATMENT OF SLEEP APNEA

Basic steps for reducing OSA are:

Weight loss. Even small weight changes can significantly affect the severity of sleep apnea, perhaps even leading to a reassessment of the degree of OSA and CPAP requirements. Longitudinal epidemiologic data demonstrate that a 10% weight loss correlates with a 26% reduction in the apnea-hypopnea index, and conversely, a 10% weight gain is associated with a 32% increase.44

Some studies have found that bariatric surgery cures OSA in 75% to 88% of cases, independent of approach.45,46 However, a trial in 60 obese patients with OSA who were randomized to either a low-calorie diet or bariatric surgery found no statistical difference in the apnea-hypopnea index between the two groups despite greater weight loss in the surgery group.47

Avoiding certain medications. Benzodiazepines, narcotics, and alcohol reduce upper airway muscle tone and should be avoided. No medications are associated with improvement of OSA, although acetazolamide may be used to treat central sleep apnea.

Positional therapy. Sleeping on the back exacerbates the problem. Supine-related OSA occurs as a result of several factors, including gravity, airway anatomy, airway critical closing pressures, and effects on upper-airway dilator muscle function.

Sleep hygiene. General recommendations to engage in behaviors to promote sleep are recommended, including keeping consistent sleep-wake times, not watching television in bed, and avoidance of caffeine intake, particularly within 4 to 6 hours of bedtime.

POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE THERAPY

Nasal CPAP is the treatment of choice and is successful in 95% of patients when used consistently. It is not as costly as surgery, and results in improved long-term survival compared with uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Another advantage is that the pressure can be retitrated as the patient’s condition changes, for example after a weight change or during pregnancy.

More than 15 randomized controlled trials have examined the effect of sleep apnea treatment with CPAP compared with either sham CPAP or another control. In a meta-analysis, CPAP was found to lead to an average systolic blood pressure reduction of about 2.5 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure reduction of 1.8 mm Hg. Although these reductions may seem negligible, benefits may be significant for cardiovascular outcomes.48,49

Challenges to treatment adherence

Adherence is the most commonly discussed problem with CPAP, but long-term adherence rates are comparable to medication compliance—about 60% to 70%. To optimize adherence, communication is important to ensure that problems are identified and addressed as they arise. Showing patients examples of apneic events and oxygen desaturation from their sleep study can enhance their understanding of OSA and its importance. Patients need to understand the serious nature of the disease and that CPAP therapy can significantly improve their quality of life and overall health, particularly from a cardiovascular perspective.

CPAP masks can be uncomfortable, posing a major barrier to compliance. But a number of mask designs are available, such as the nasal mask, the nasal pillow mask, and the oronasal mask. For patients with claustrophobia, the nasal pillow mask is an option, as it does not cover the face.

Some patients note symptoms of nasal congestion, although in many patients CPAP improves it. If congestion is a problem, the use of heated humidification with the machine, intranasal saline or gel, or nasal corticosteroids can help relieve it.

Pressure intolerance is a common problem. For those who feel that the pressure is too high, settings can be adjusted so that the pressure is gradually reduced between inspiration and expiration, ie, the use of expiratory pressure relief or consideration of the use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Aerophagia (swallowing air) is a less common problem. It can also potentially be relieved with use of bilevel positive airway pressure.

Many patients develop skin irritation, which can be helped with moleskin, available at any pharmacy.

Social stigma can be a problem. Education regarding the importance of the treatment to health is essential.

Machine noise is less of a problem with the new machine models, but if it is a problem, a white-noise device or earplugs may help.

Other measures to improve compliance are keeping the regimen simple and ensuring that family support is adequate.

Medicare requires evidence of use and benefit

Medicare requires that clinical benefit be documented between the 31st and 91st day after initiating CPAP therapy. This requires face-to-face clinical reevaluation by the treating physician to document improved symptoms and objective evidence of adherence to use of the device. The devices can store usage patterns, and Medicare requires at least 4 hours per night on 70% of nights during a consecutive 30-day period in the first 3 months of use.

ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES

Alternative therapies may be options for some patients, in particular those who cannot use CPAP or who get no benefit from it. These include oral appliances for those with mild to moderate OSA50–53 and various surgical procedures, eg, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty,54,55 maxillomanibular advancement,56 tracheostomy (standard treatment before CPAP was identified as an effective treatment),57,58 and adenotonsillectomy (in children).59

Supplemental oxygen is not a first-line treatment for OSA and in general has not been found to be very effective, particularly in terms of intermediate cardiovascular outcomes,60–62 although a subset of patients with high loop gain may benefit from it.63 Loop gain is a measure of the tendency of the ventilatory control system to amplify respiration in response to a change, conferring less stable control of breathing.

Several novel alternative therapies are starting to be used. Although all of them have been shown to improve measures of OSA, none is as effective as CPAP in improving OSA severity. New therapies include the nasal expiratory positive airway pressure device,64 oral pressure therapy,65 and hypoglossal nerve stimulation.66

References
  1. Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J, Weber S, Badr S. The occurrence of sleep-disordered breathing among middle-aged adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:12301235.
  2. Peppard PE, Young T, Barnet JH, Palta M, Hagen EW, Hla KM. Increased prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in adults. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 177:10061014.
  3. Kapur VK, Redline S, Nieto FJ, Young TB, Newman AB, Henderson JA; Sleep Heart Health Research Group. The relationship between chronically disrupted sleep and healthcare use. Sleep 2002; 25:289296.
  4. Kapur V, Blough DK, Sandblom RE, et al. The medical cost of undiagnosed sleep apnea. Sleep 1999; 22:749755.
  5. Mooe T, Rabben T, Wiklund U, Franklin KA, Eriksson P. Sleep-disordered breathing in men with coronary artery disease. Chest 1996; 109:659663.
  6. Schafer H, Koehler U, Ewig S, Hasper E, Tasci S, Luderitz B. Obstructive sleep apnea as a risk marker in coronary artery disease. Cardiology 1999; 92:7984.
  7. Leung RS, Bradley TD. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164:21472165.
  8. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Second Edition: Diagnostic and coding manual. Westchester, IL; American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2005.
  9. Somers VK, Dyken ME, Clary MP, Abboud FM. Sympathetic neural mechanisms in obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Invest 1995; 96:18971904.
  10. Mehra R. Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular disease: exploring pathophysiology and existing data. Curr Resp Med Rev 2007; 3:258269.
  11. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Kirchner HL, et al. Soluble interleukin 6 receptor: a novel marker of moderate to severe sleep-related breathing disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:17251731.
  12. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  13. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Tracy R, Jenny N, Redline S. Association of sleep disordered breathing and oxidized LDL [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181:A2474.
  14. Mehra R, Benjamin EJ, Shahar E, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study. Association of nocturnal arrhythmias with sleep-disordered breathing: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:910916.
  15. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  16. Monahan K, Storfer-Isser A, Mehra R, et al. Triggering of nocturnal arrhythmias by sleep-disordered breathing events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:17971804.
  17. Kanagala R, Murali NS, Friedman PA, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2003; 107:25892594.
  18. Patel D, Mohanty P, Di Biase L, et al. Safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein antral isolation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: the impact of continuous positive airway pressure. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2010; 3:445451.
  19. Walia H, Strohl KP, Mehra R. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on an atrial arrhythmia in a patient with mild obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 2011; 7:397398.
  20. Marin JM, Carrizo SJ, Vicente E, Agusti AG. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes in men with obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea with or without treatment with continuous positive airway pressure: an observational study. Lancet 2005; 365:10461053.
  21. Redline S, Yenokyan G, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea and incident stroke: the sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:269277.
  22. Wang H, Parker JD, Newton GE, et al. Influence of obstructive sleep apnea on mortality in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:16251631.
  23. Khayat R, Abraham W, Patt B, et al. Central sleep apnea is a predictor of cardiac readmission in hospitalized patients with systolic heart failure. J Card Fail 2012; 18:534540.
  24. Gami AS, Howard DE, Olson EJ, Somers VK. Day-night pattern of sudden death in obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:12061214.
  25. Punjabi NM, Caffo BS, Goodwin JL, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and mortality: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2009; 6( 8):e1000132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000132.
  26. Young T, Blustein J, Finn L, Palta M. Sleep-disordered breathing and motor vehicle accidents in a population-based sample of employed adults. Sleep 1997; 20:608613.
  27. Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnea: a population health perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:12171239.
  28. Lin CM, Davidson TM, Ancoli-Israel S. Gender differences in obstructive sleep apnea and treatment implications. Sleep Med Rev 2008; 12:481496.
  29. Shaher E, Redline S, Young T, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and sleep-disordered breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11861192.
  30. Young T, Finn L, Austin D, Peterson A. Menopausal status and sleep-disordered breathing in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11811185.
  31. Ancoli-Israel S, Klauber MR, Stepnowsky C, Estline E, Chinn A, Fell R. Sleep-disordered breathing in African-American elderly. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:19461949.
  32. Young T, Shahar E, Nieto FJ, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study Research Group. Predictors of sleep-disordered breathing in community-dwelling adults: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:893900.
  33. Redline S, Tishler PV, Hans MG, Tosteson TD, Strohl KP, Spry K. Racial differences in sleep-disordered breathing in African-Americans and Caucasians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:186192. Erratum in: Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:1820.
  34. Sutherland K, Lee RWW, Cistulli PA. Obesity and craniofacial structure as risk factors for obstructive sleep apnoea: impact of ethnicity. Respirology 2012; 17:213222.
  35. Schwab RJ, Gupta KB, Gefter WB, Metzger LJ, Hoffman EA, Pack AI. Upper airway and soft tissue anatomy in normal subjects and patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Significance of the lateral pharyngeal walls. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:16731689.
  36. Nieto FJ, Young TB, Lind BK, et al. Association of sleep-disordered breathing, sleep apnea, and hypertension in a large community-based study. Sleep Heart Health Study. JAMA 2000; 283:18291836.
  37. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 1991; 14:540545.
  38. Krieger J, Imbs J-L, Schmidt M, Kurtz D. Renal function in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148:13371340.
  39. Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, et al. STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:812821.
  40. Friedman M, Ibrahim H, Bass L. Clinical staging for sleep-disordered breathing. Otolaryngal Head Neck Surg 2002; 127:1321.
  41. Sleep-related breathing disorders in adults: recommendations for syndrome definition and measurement techniques in clinical research. Report of an American Academy of Sleep Medicine Task Force. Sleep 1999; 22:667689.
  42. Collop NA, Anderson WM, Boehlecke B, et al; Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical guidelines for the use of unattended portable monitors in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adult patients. Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med 2007; 3:737747.
  43. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). MLN Matters 2008. www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM6048.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2014.
  44. Peppard PE, Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J. Longitudinal study of moderate weight change and sleep-disordered breathing. JAMA 2000; 284:30153021.
  45. Guardiano SA, Scott JA, Ware JC, Schechner SA. The long-term results of gastric bypass on indexes of sleep apnea. Chest 2003; 124:16151619.
  46. Crooks PF. Surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Annu Rev Med 2006; 57:243264.
  47. Dixon JB, Schachter LM, O’Brien PE, et al. Surgical vs conventional therapy for weight loss treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 308:11421149.
  48. Bazzano LA, Khan Z, Reynolds K, He J. Effect of nocturnal nasal continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea. Hypertension 2007; 50:417423.
  49. Logan AG, Perlikowski SM, Mente A, et al. High prevalence of unrecognized sleep apnoea in drug-resistant hypertension. J Hypertens 2001; 19:22712277.
  50. Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, et al; American Academy of Sleep. Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005. Sleep 2006; 29:240243.
  51. Otsuka R, Ribeiro de Almeida F, Lowe AA, Linden W, Ryan F. The effect of oral appliance therapy on blood pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath 2006; 10:2936.
  52. Yoshida K. Effect on blood pressure of oral appliance therapy for sleep apnea syndrome. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19:6166.
  53. Inazawa T, Ayuse T, Kurata S, et al. Effect of mandibular position on upper airway collapsibility and resistance. J Dent Res 2005; 84:554558.
  54. Fujita S, Conway W, Zorick F, Roth T. Surgical correction of anatomic abnormalities in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1981; 89:923934.
  55. Schwab RJ. Imaging for the snoring and sleep apnea patient. Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45:759796.
  56. Prinsell JR. Maxillomandibular advancement surgery for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133:14891497.
  57. Thatcher GW, Maisel RH. The long-term evaluation of tracheostomy in the management of severe obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:201204.
  58. Conway WA, Victor LD, Magilligan DJ, Fujita S, Zorick FJ, Roth T. Adverse effects of tracheostomy for sleep apnea. JAMA 1981; 246:347350.
  59. Marcus CL, Moore RH, Rosen CL, et al; Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial (CHAT). A randomized trial of adenotonsillectomy for childhood sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:23662376.
  60. Gottlieb DJ, Craig SE, Lorenzi-Filho G, et al. Sleep apnea cardiovascular clinical trials-current status and steps forward: The International Collaboration of Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Trialists. Sleep 2013; 36:975980.
  61. Loredo JS, Ancoli-Israel S, Kim EJ, Lim WJ, Dimsdale JE. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure versus supplemental oxygen on sleep quality in obstructive sleep apnea: a placebo-CPAP-controlled study. Sleep 2006; 29:564571.
  62. Phillips BA, McConnell JW, Smith MD. The effects of hypoxemia on cardiac output. A dose-response curve. Chest 1988; 93:471475.
  63. Wellman A, Malhotra A, Jordan AS, Stevenson KE, Gautam S, White DP. Effect of oxygen in obstructive sleep apnea: role of loop gain. Respire Physiol Neurobiol 2008; 162:144151.
  64. Berry RB, Kryger MH, Massie CA. A novel nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep 2011; 34:479485.
  65. Colrain IM, Black J, Siegel LC, et al. A multicenter evaluation of oral pressure therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Med 2013; 14:830837.
  66. Strollo PJ Jr, Soose RJ, Maurer JT, et al; STAR Trial Group. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:139149.
References
  1. Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J, Weber S, Badr S. The occurrence of sleep-disordered breathing among middle-aged adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:12301235.
  2. Peppard PE, Young T, Barnet JH, Palta M, Hagen EW, Hla KM. Increased prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in adults. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 177:10061014.
  3. Kapur VK, Redline S, Nieto FJ, Young TB, Newman AB, Henderson JA; Sleep Heart Health Research Group. The relationship between chronically disrupted sleep and healthcare use. Sleep 2002; 25:289296.
  4. Kapur V, Blough DK, Sandblom RE, et al. The medical cost of undiagnosed sleep apnea. Sleep 1999; 22:749755.
  5. Mooe T, Rabben T, Wiklund U, Franklin KA, Eriksson P. Sleep-disordered breathing in men with coronary artery disease. Chest 1996; 109:659663.
  6. Schafer H, Koehler U, Ewig S, Hasper E, Tasci S, Luderitz B. Obstructive sleep apnea as a risk marker in coronary artery disease. Cardiology 1999; 92:7984.
  7. Leung RS, Bradley TD. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164:21472165.
  8. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Second Edition: Diagnostic and coding manual. Westchester, IL; American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2005.
  9. Somers VK, Dyken ME, Clary MP, Abboud FM. Sympathetic neural mechanisms in obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Invest 1995; 96:18971904.
  10. Mehra R. Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular disease: exploring pathophysiology and existing data. Curr Resp Med Rev 2007; 3:258269.
  11. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Kirchner HL, et al. Soluble interleukin 6 receptor: a novel marker of moderate to severe sleep-related breathing disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:17251731.
  12. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  13. Mehra R, Storfer-Isser A, Tracy R, Jenny N, Redline S. Association of sleep disordered breathing and oxidized LDL [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181:A2474.
  14. Mehra R, Benjamin EJ, Shahar E, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study. Association of nocturnal arrhythmias with sleep-disordered breathing: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:910916.
  15. Mehra R, Xu F, Babineau DC, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and prothrombotic biomarkers: cross-sectional results of the Cleveland Family Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:826833.
  16. Monahan K, Storfer-Isser A, Mehra R, et al. Triggering of nocturnal arrhythmias by sleep-disordered breathing events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:17971804.
  17. Kanagala R, Murali NS, Friedman PA, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2003; 107:25892594.
  18. Patel D, Mohanty P, Di Biase L, et al. Safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein antral isolation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: the impact of continuous positive airway pressure. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2010; 3:445451.
  19. Walia H, Strohl KP, Mehra R. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on an atrial arrhythmia in a patient with mild obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 2011; 7:397398.
  20. Marin JM, Carrizo SJ, Vicente E, Agusti AG. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes in men with obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea with or without treatment with continuous positive airway pressure: an observational study. Lancet 2005; 365:10461053.
  21. Redline S, Yenokyan G, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea and incident stroke: the sleep heart health study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182:269277.
  22. Wang H, Parker JD, Newton GE, et al. Influence of obstructive sleep apnea on mortality in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:16251631.
  23. Khayat R, Abraham W, Patt B, et al. Central sleep apnea is a predictor of cardiac readmission in hospitalized patients with systolic heart failure. J Card Fail 2012; 18:534540.
  24. Gami AS, Howard DE, Olson EJ, Somers VK. Day-night pattern of sudden death in obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:12061214.
  25. Punjabi NM, Caffo BS, Goodwin JL, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing and mortality: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2009; 6( 8):e1000132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000132.
  26. Young T, Blustein J, Finn L, Palta M. Sleep-disordered breathing and motor vehicle accidents in a population-based sample of employed adults. Sleep 1997; 20:608613.
  27. Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnea: a population health perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:12171239.
  28. Lin CM, Davidson TM, Ancoli-Israel S. Gender differences in obstructive sleep apnea and treatment implications. Sleep Med Rev 2008; 12:481496.
  29. Shaher E, Redline S, Young T, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and sleep-disordered breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11861192.
  30. Young T, Finn L, Austin D, Peterson A. Menopausal status and sleep-disordered breathing in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:11811185.
  31. Ancoli-Israel S, Klauber MR, Stepnowsky C, Estline E, Chinn A, Fell R. Sleep-disordered breathing in African-American elderly. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:19461949.
  32. Young T, Shahar E, Nieto FJ, et al; Sleep Heart Health Study Research Group. Predictors of sleep-disordered breathing in community-dwelling adults: the Sleep Heart Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:893900.
  33. Redline S, Tishler PV, Hans MG, Tosteson TD, Strohl KP, Spry K. Racial differences in sleep-disordered breathing in African-Americans and Caucasians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:186192. Erratum in: Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:1820.
  34. Sutherland K, Lee RWW, Cistulli PA. Obesity and craniofacial structure as risk factors for obstructive sleep apnoea: impact of ethnicity. Respirology 2012; 17:213222.
  35. Schwab RJ, Gupta KB, Gefter WB, Metzger LJ, Hoffman EA, Pack AI. Upper airway and soft tissue anatomy in normal subjects and patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Significance of the lateral pharyngeal walls. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:16731689.
  36. Nieto FJ, Young TB, Lind BK, et al. Association of sleep-disordered breathing, sleep apnea, and hypertension in a large community-based study. Sleep Heart Health Study. JAMA 2000; 283:18291836.
  37. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep 1991; 14:540545.
  38. Krieger J, Imbs J-L, Schmidt M, Kurtz D. Renal function in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Effects of nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148:13371340.
  39. Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, et al. STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:812821.
  40. Friedman M, Ibrahim H, Bass L. Clinical staging for sleep-disordered breathing. Otolaryngal Head Neck Surg 2002; 127:1321.
  41. Sleep-related breathing disorders in adults: recommendations for syndrome definition and measurement techniques in clinical research. Report of an American Academy of Sleep Medicine Task Force. Sleep 1999; 22:667689.
  42. Collop NA, Anderson WM, Boehlecke B, et al; Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical guidelines for the use of unattended portable monitors in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adult patients. Portable Monitoring Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. J Clin Sleep Med 2007; 3:737747.
  43. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). MLN Matters 2008. www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM6048.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2014.
  44. Peppard PE, Young T, Palta M, Dempsey J, Skatrud J. Longitudinal study of moderate weight change and sleep-disordered breathing. JAMA 2000; 284:30153021.
  45. Guardiano SA, Scott JA, Ware JC, Schechner SA. The long-term results of gastric bypass on indexes of sleep apnea. Chest 2003; 124:16151619.
  46. Crooks PF. Surgical treatment of morbid obesity. Annu Rev Med 2006; 57:243264.
  47. Dixon JB, Schachter LM, O’Brien PE, et al. Surgical vs conventional therapy for weight loss treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 308:11421149.
  48. Bazzano LA, Khan Z, Reynolds K, He J. Effect of nocturnal nasal continuous positive airway pressure on blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea. Hypertension 2007; 50:417423.
  49. Logan AG, Perlikowski SM, Mente A, et al. High prevalence of unrecognized sleep apnoea in drug-resistant hypertension. J Hypertens 2001; 19:22712277.
  50. Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, et al; American Academy of Sleep. Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005. Sleep 2006; 29:240243.
  51. Otsuka R, Ribeiro de Almeida F, Lowe AA, Linden W, Ryan F. The effect of oral appliance therapy on blood pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Breath 2006; 10:2936.
  52. Yoshida K. Effect on blood pressure of oral appliance therapy for sleep apnea syndrome. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19:6166.
  53. Inazawa T, Ayuse T, Kurata S, et al. Effect of mandibular position on upper airway collapsibility and resistance. J Dent Res 2005; 84:554558.
  54. Fujita S, Conway W, Zorick F, Roth T. Surgical correction of anatomic abnormalities in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1981; 89:923934.
  55. Schwab RJ. Imaging for the snoring and sleep apnea patient. Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45:759796.
  56. Prinsell JR. Maxillomandibular advancement surgery for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133:14891497.
  57. Thatcher GW, Maisel RH. The long-term evaluation of tracheostomy in the management of severe obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:201204.
  58. Conway WA, Victor LD, Magilligan DJ, Fujita S, Zorick FJ, Roth T. Adverse effects of tracheostomy for sleep apnea. JAMA 1981; 246:347350.
  59. Marcus CL, Moore RH, Rosen CL, et al; Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial (CHAT). A randomized trial of adenotonsillectomy for childhood sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:23662376.
  60. Gottlieb DJ, Craig SE, Lorenzi-Filho G, et al. Sleep apnea cardiovascular clinical trials-current status and steps forward: The International Collaboration of Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Trialists. Sleep 2013; 36:975980.
  61. Loredo JS, Ancoli-Israel S, Kim EJ, Lim WJ, Dimsdale JE. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure versus supplemental oxygen on sleep quality in obstructive sleep apnea: a placebo-CPAP-controlled study. Sleep 2006; 29:564571.
  62. Phillips BA, McConnell JW, Smith MD. The effects of hypoxemia on cardiac output. A dose-response curve. Chest 1988; 93:471475.
  63. Wellman A, Malhotra A, Jordan AS, Stevenson KE, Gautam S, White DP. Effect of oxygen in obstructive sleep apnea: role of loop gain. Respire Physiol Neurobiol 2008; 162:144151.
  64. Berry RB, Kryger MH, Massie CA. A novel nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep 2011; 34:479485.
  65. Colrain IM, Black J, Siegel LC, et al. A multicenter evaluation of oral pressure therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep Med 2013; 14:830837.
  66. Strollo PJ Jr, Soose RJ, Maurer JT, et al; STAR Trial Group. Upper-airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:139149.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Page Number
479-489
Page Number
479-489
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Sleep apnea ABCs: Airway, breathing, circulation
Display Headline
Sleep apnea ABCs: Airway, breathing, circulation
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Although obesity and snoring are common features of OSA, they are not always present.
  • Home sleep testing is appropriate for those highly likely to have sleep apnea and without other significant sleep or cardiovascular, respiratory, or neurologic disorders.
  • Upper-airway surgery has a limited role—it is indicated primarily for those unable to tolerate CPAP.
  • Risk of motor vehicle accidents is dramatically increased in untreated sleep apnea; patients should be counseled on the dangers of drowsy driving.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: The evidence continues to evolve

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 14:31
Display Headline
Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: The evidence continues to evolve

Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.1 Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study2 found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.3

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.4 Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.5 These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.6 Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events7 and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.10 They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.11 Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.12

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al13 began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.14 Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial15 (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,16 survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,17 in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al18 devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

  • Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
  • Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
  • Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
  • History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
  • Diabetes requiring insulin
  • High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

 

 

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study19 (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study20 (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial21 (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al22 retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,23 in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,1 published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results1 prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,24 in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines25 published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology26 released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,27 in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,22 only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

  • Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
  • Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
  • Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
  • Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study28 examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

  • MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
  • All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.1 The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE1 found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,29 included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.1 In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”29

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

 

 

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.32 Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)33 in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.34

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.35

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths36 and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates37 than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,38,39 a lower mortality rate,31 and a better composite outcome39 (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,19 POBBLE,20 and DIPOM21 trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial1 used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE1 was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.40 An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.41 The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),42 which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

References
  1. POISE Study Group; Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371:18391847.
  2. Wijeysundera DN, Mamdani M, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical evidence, practice guidelines, and ß-blocker utilization before major noncardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012; 5:558565.
  3. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery); American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:23432355.
  4. Harte B, Jaffer AK. Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: evolution of the evidence. Cleve Clin J Med 2008; 75:513519.
  5. Mangano DT. Perioperative cardiac morbidity. Anesthesiology 1990; 72:153184.
  6. London MJ, Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Spahn DR. Perioperative beta-adrenergic receptor blockade: physiologic foundations and clinical controversies. Anesthesiology 2004; 100:170175.
  7. Badner NH, Knill RL, Brown JE, Novick TV, Gelb AW. Myocardial infarction after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:572578.
  8. Priebe HJ. Triggers of perioperative myocardial ischaemia and infarction. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:920.
  9. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Foëx P. Myocardial injury and its prevention in the perioperative setting. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:2133.
  10. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Pasch T, Spahn DR. Modulation of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype activities in perioperative medicine: mechanisms and sites of action. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88:101123.
  11. Landesberg G. The pathophysiology of perioperative myocardial infarction: facts and perspectives. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17:90100.
  12. Yeager MP, Fillinger MP, Hettleman BD, Hartman GS. Perioperative beta-blockade and late cardiac outcomes: a complementary hypothesis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19:237241.
  13. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  14. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, et al. Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes. Anesthesiology 2014; 120:564578.
  15. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  16. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol reduces cardiac death and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients as long as 2 years after successful major vascular surgery. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:13531358.
  17. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al; DECREASE Study Group (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiogrpahy). Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  18. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100:10431049.
  19. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  20. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR; POBBLE trial investigators. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  21. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al; DIPOM Trial Group. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  22. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:349361.
  23. Feringa HH, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. High-dose beta-blockers and tight heart rate control reduce myocardial ischemia and troponin T release in vascular surgery patients. Circulation 2006; 114(suppl 1):13441349.
  24. Dunkelgrun M, Boersma E, Schouten O, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol and fluvastatin for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in intermediate-risk patients undergoing noncardiovascular surgery: a randomized controlled trial (DECREASE-IV). Ann Surg 2009; 249:921926.
  25. American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine; Society for Vascular Surgery; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. 2009 ACCF/AHA focused update on perioperative beta blockade incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:e13e118.
  26. Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. Guidelines for preoperative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:27692812.
  27. London MJ, Hur K, Schwartz GG, Henderson WG. Association of perioperative beta-blockade with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2013; 309:17041713.
  28. Andersson C, Mérie C, Jørgensen M, et al. Association of beta-blocker therapy with risks of adverse cardiovascular events and deaths in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:336344.
  29. Bouri S, Shun-Shin MJ, Cole GD, Mayet J, Francis DP. Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of beta-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart 2014; 100:456464.
  30. Guay J, Ochroch EA. Beta-blocking agents for surgery: influence on mortality and major outcomes. A meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27:834844.
  31. Dai N, Xu D, Zhang J, et al. Different beta-blockers and initiation time in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Med Sci 2014; 347:235244.
  32. Baker JG. The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists at the human beta1, beta2 and beta3 adrenoceptors. Br J Pharmacol 2005; 144:317322.
  33. Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN, Karkouti K, et al. Acute surgical anemia influences the cardioprotective effects of beta-blockade: a single-center, propensity-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:2533.
  34. Le Manach Y, Collins GS, Ibanez C, et al. Impact of perioperative bleeding on the protective effect of beta-blockers during infrarenal aortic reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2012; 117:12031211.
  35. Badgett RG, Lawrence VA, Cohn SL. Variations in pharmacology of beta-blockers may contribute to heterogeneous results in trials of perioperative beta-blockade. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:585592.
  36. Redelmeier D, Scales D, Kopp A. Beta blockers for elective surgery in elderly patients: population based, retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2005; 331:932.
  37. Wallace AW, Au S, Cason BA. Perioperative beta-blockade: atenolol is associated with reduced mortality when compared to metoprolol. Anesthesiology 2011; 114:824836.
  38. Mashour GA, Sharifpour M, Freundlich RE, et al. Perioperative metoprolol and risk of stroke after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:13401346.
  39. Ashes C, Judelman S, Wijeysundera DN, et al. Selective beta1-antagonism with bisoprolol is associated with fewer postoperative strokes than atenolol or metoprolol: a single-center cohort study of 44,092 consecutive patients. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:777787.
  40. Selim M. Perioperative stroke. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:706713.
  41. van Lier F, Schouten O, van Domburg RT, et al. Effect of chronic beta-blocker use on stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104:429433.
  42. van Lier F, Schouten O, Hoeks SE, et al. Impact of prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105:4347.
  43. Devereaux PJ, Beattie WS, Choi PT, et al. How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005; 331:313321.
  44. McGory ML, Maggard MA, Ko CY. A meta-analysis of perioperative beta blockade: what is the actual risk reduction? Surgery 2005; 138:171179.
  45. Schouten O, Shaw LJ, Boersma E, et al. A meta-analysis of safety and effectiveness of perioperative beta-blocker use for the prevention of cardiac events in different types of noncardiac surgery. Coron Artery Dis 2006; 17:173179.
  46. Wiesbauer F, Schlager O, Domanovits H, et al. Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:2741.
  47. Bangalore S, Wetterslev J, Pranesh S, Sawhney S, Gluud C, Messerli FH. Perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2008; 372:19621976.
  48. Flu WJ, van Kuijk JP, Chonchol M, et al. Timing of preoperative beta-blocker treatment in vascular surgery patients: influence on postoperative outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:19221929.
  49. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Wijeysundera HC, Yun L, Austin PC, Ko DT. Duration of preoperative beta-blockade and outcomes after major elective noncardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2014; 30:217223.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Muzammil Mushtaq, MD
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Steven L. Cohn, MD, MS, FACP, SFHM
Medical Director, UHealth Preoperative Assessment Center; Director, UMH Medical Consultation Service; Professor of Clinical Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Address: Steven L. Cohn, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th St., CRB-1140, Miami, FL 33136; e-mail: scohn@med.miami.edu

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
501-512
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Muzammil Mushtaq, MD
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Steven L. Cohn, MD, MS, FACP, SFHM
Medical Director, UHealth Preoperative Assessment Center; Director, UMH Medical Consultation Service; Professor of Clinical Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Address: Steven L. Cohn, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th St., CRB-1140, Miami, FL 33136; e-mail: scohn@med.miami.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Muzammil Mushtaq, MD
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Steven L. Cohn, MD, MS, FACP, SFHM
Medical Director, UHealth Preoperative Assessment Center; Director, UMH Medical Consultation Service; Professor of Clinical Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Address: Steven L. Cohn, MD, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th St., CRB-1140, Miami, FL 33136; e-mail: scohn@med.miami.edu

Article PDF
Article PDF

Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.1 Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study2 found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.3

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.4 Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.5 These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.6 Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events7 and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.10 They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.11 Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.12

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al13 began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.14 Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial15 (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,16 survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,17 in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al18 devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

  • Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
  • Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
  • Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
  • History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
  • Diabetes requiring insulin
  • High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

 

 

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study19 (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study20 (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial21 (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al22 retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,23 in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,1 published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results1 prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,24 in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines25 published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology26 released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,27 in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,22 only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

  • Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
  • Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
  • Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
  • Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study28 examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

  • MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
  • All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.1 The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE1 found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,29 included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.1 In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”29

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

 

 

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.32 Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)33 in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.34

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.35

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths36 and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates37 than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,38,39 a lower mortality rate,31 and a better composite outcome39 (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,19 POBBLE,20 and DIPOM21 trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial1 used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE1 was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.40 An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.41 The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),42 which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.1 Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study2 found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.3

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.4 Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.5 These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.6 Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events7 and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.10 They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.11 Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.12

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al13 began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.14 Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial15 (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,16 survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,17 in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al18 devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

  • Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
  • Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
  • Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
  • History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
  • Diabetes requiring insulin
  • High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

 

 

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study19 (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study20 (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial21 (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al22 retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,23 in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,1 published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results1 prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,24 in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines25 published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology26 released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,27 in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,22 only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

  • Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
  • Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
  • Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
  • Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study28 examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

  • MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
  • All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

  • MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
  • All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.1 The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE1 found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,29 included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.1 In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”29

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

 

 

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.32 Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)33 in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.34

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.35

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths36 and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates37 than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,38,39 a lower mortality rate,31 and a better composite outcome39 (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,19 POBBLE,20 and DIPOM21 trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial1 used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE1 was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.40 An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.41 The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),42 which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

References
  1. POISE Study Group; Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371:18391847.
  2. Wijeysundera DN, Mamdani M, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical evidence, practice guidelines, and ß-blocker utilization before major noncardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012; 5:558565.
  3. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery); American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:23432355.
  4. Harte B, Jaffer AK. Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: evolution of the evidence. Cleve Clin J Med 2008; 75:513519.
  5. Mangano DT. Perioperative cardiac morbidity. Anesthesiology 1990; 72:153184.
  6. London MJ, Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Spahn DR. Perioperative beta-adrenergic receptor blockade: physiologic foundations and clinical controversies. Anesthesiology 2004; 100:170175.
  7. Badner NH, Knill RL, Brown JE, Novick TV, Gelb AW. Myocardial infarction after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:572578.
  8. Priebe HJ. Triggers of perioperative myocardial ischaemia and infarction. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:920.
  9. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Foëx P. Myocardial injury and its prevention in the perioperative setting. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:2133.
  10. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Pasch T, Spahn DR. Modulation of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype activities in perioperative medicine: mechanisms and sites of action. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88:101123.
  11. Landesberg G. The pathophysiology of perioperative myocardial infarction: facts and perspectives. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17:90100.
  12. Yeager MP, Fillinger MP, Hettleman BD, Hartman GS. Perioperative beta-blockade and late cardiac outcomes: a complementary hypothesis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19:237241.
  13. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  14. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, et al. Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes. Anesthesiology 2014; 120:564578.
  15. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  16. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol reduces cardiac death and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients as long as 2 years after successful major vascular surgery. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:13531358.
  17. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al; DECREASE Study Group (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiogrpahy). Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  18. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100:10431049.
  19. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  20. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR; POBBLE trial investigators. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  21. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al; DIPOM Trial Group. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  22. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:349361.
  23. Feringa HH, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. High-dose beta-blockers and tight heart rate control reduce myocardial ischemia and troponin T release in vascular surgery patients. Circulation 2006; 114(suppl 1):13441349.
  24. Dunkelgrun M, Boersma E, Schouten O, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol and fluvastatin for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in intermediate-risk patients undergoing noncardiovascular surgery: a randomized controlled trial (DECREASE-IV). Ann Surg 2009; 249:921926.
  25. American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine; Society for Vascular Surgery; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. 2009 ACCF/AHA focused update on perioperative beta blockade incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:e13e118.
  26. Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. Guidelines for preoperative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:27692812.
  27. London MJ, Hur K, Schwartz GG, Henderson WG. Association of perioperative beta-blockade with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2013; 309:17041713.
  28. Andersson C, Mérie C, Jørgensen M, et al. Association of beta-blocker therapy with risks of adverse cardiovascular events and deaths in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:336344.
  29. Bouri S, Shun-Shin MJ, Cole GD, Mayet J, Francis DP. Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of beta-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart 2014; 100:456464.
  30. Guay J, Ochroch EA. Beta-blocking agents for surgery: influence on mortality and major outcomes. A meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27:834844.
  31. Dai N, Xu D, Zhang J, et al. Different beta-blockers and initiation time in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Med Sci 2014; 347:235244.
  32. Baker JG. The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists at the human beta1, beta2 and beta3 adrenoceptors. Br J Pharmacol 2005; 144:317322.
  33. Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN, Karkouti K, et al. Acute surgical anemia influences the cardioprotective effects of beta-blockade: a single-center, propensity-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:2533.
  34. Le Manach Y, Collins GS, Ibanez C, et al. Impact of perioperative bleeding on the protective effect of beta-blockers during infrarenal aortic reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2012; 117:12031211.
  35. Badgett RG, Lawrence VA, Cohn SL. Variations in pharmacology of beta-blockers may contribute to heterogeneous results in trials of perioperative beta-blockade. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:585592.
  36. Redelmeier D, Scales D, Kopp A. Beta blockers for elective surgery in elderly patients: population based, retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2005; 331:932.
  37. Wallace AW, Au S, Cason BA. Perioperative beta-blockade: atenolol is associated with reduced mortality when compared to metoprolol. Anesthesiology 2011; 114:824836.
  38. Mashour GA, Sharifpour M, Freundlich RE, et al. Perioperative metoprolol and risk of stroke after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:13401346.
  39. Ashes C, Judelman S, Wijeysundera DN, et al. Selective beta1-antagonism with bisoprolol is associated with fewer postoperative strokes than atenolol or metoprolol: a single-center cohort study of 44,092 consecutive patients. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:777787.
  40. Selim M. Perioperative stroke. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:706713.
  41. van Lier F, Schouten O, van Domburg RT, et al. Effect of chronic beta-blocker use on stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104:429433.
  42. van Lier F, Schouten O, Hoeks SE, et al. Impact of prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105:4347.
  43. Devereaux PJ, Beattie WS, Choi PT, et al. How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005; 331:313321.
  44. McGory ML, Maggard MA, Ko CY. A meta-analysis of perioperative beta blockade: what is the actual risk reduction? Surgery 2005; 138:171179.
  45. Schouten O, Shaw LJ, Boersma E, et al. A meta-analysis of safety and effectiveness of perioperative beta-blocker use for the prevention of cardiac events in different types of noncardiac surgery. Coron Artery Dis 2006; 17:173179.
  46. Wiesbauer F, Schlager O, Domanovits H, et al. Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:2741.
  47. Bangalore S, Wetterslev J, Pranesh S, Sawhney S, Gluud C, Messerli FH. Perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2008; 372:19621976.
  48. Flu WJ, van Kuijk JP, Chonchol M, et al. Timing of preoperative beta-blocker treatment in vascular surgery patients: influence on postoperative outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:19221929.
  49. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Wijeysundera HC, Yun L, Austin PC, Ko DT. Duration of preoperative beta-blockade and outcomes after major elective noncardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2014; 30:217223.
References
  1. POISE Study Group; Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371:18391847.
  2. Wijeysundera DN, Mamdani M, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical evidence, practice guidelines, and ß-blocker utilization before major noncardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012; 5:558565.
  3. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery); American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:23432355.
  4. Harte B, Jaffer AK. Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: evolution of the evidence. Cleve Clin J Med 2008; 75:513519.
  5. Mangano DT. Perioperative cardiac morbidity. Anesthesiology 1990; 72:153184.
  6. London MJ, Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Spahn DR. Perioperative beta-adrenergic receptor blockade: physiologic foundations and clinical controversies. Anesthesiology 2004; 100:170175.
  7. Badner NH, Knill RL, Brown JE, Novick TV, Gelb AW. Myocardial infarction after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 1998; 88:572578.
  8. Priebe HJ. Triggers of perioperative myocardial ischaemia and infarction. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:920.
  9. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Foëx P. Myocardial injury and its prevention in the perioperative setting. Br J Anaesth 2004; 93:2133.
  10. Zaugg M, Schaub MC, Pasch T, Spahn DR. Modulation of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype activities in perioperative medicine: mechanisms and sites of action. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88:101123.
  11. Landesberg G. The pathophysiology of perioperative myocardial infarction: facts and perspectives. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17:90100.
  12. Yeager MP, Fillinger MP, Hettleman BD, Hartman GS. Perioperative beta-blockade and late cardiac outcomes: a complementary hypothesis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19:237241.
  13. Mangano DT, Layug EL, Wallace A, Tateo I. Effect of atenolol on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after noncardiac surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:17131720.
  14. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, et al. Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes. Anesthesiology 2014; 120:564578.
  15. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:17891794.
  16. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol reduces cardiac death and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients as long as 2 years after successful major vascular surgery. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:13531358.
  17. Boersma E, Poldermans D, Bax JJ, et al; DECREASE Study Group (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiogrpahy). Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. JAMA 2001; 285:18651873.
  18. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100:10431049.
  19. Yang H, Raymer K, Butler R, Parlow J, Roberts R. The effects of perioperative beta-blockade: results of the Metoprolol after Vascular Surgery (MaVS) study, a randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006; 152:983990.
  20. Brady AR, Gibbs JS, Greenhalgh RM, Powell JT, Sydes MR; POBBLE trial investigators. Perioperative beta-blockade (POBBLE) for patients undergoing infrarenal vascular surgery: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 2005; 41:602609.
  21. Juul AB, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, et al; DIPOM Trial Group. Effect of perioperative beta blockade in patients with diabetes undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: randomised placebo controlled, blinded multicentre trial. BMJ 2006; 332:1482.
  22. Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:349361.
  23. Feringa HH, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. High-dose beta-blockers and tight heart rate control reduce myocardial ischemia and troponin T release in vascular surgery patients. Circulation 2006; 114(suppl 1):13441349.
  24. Dunkelgrun M, Boersma E, Schouten O, et al; Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. Bisoprolol and fluvastatin for the reduction of perioperative cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in intermediate-risk patients undergoing noncardiovascular surgery: a randomized controlled trial (DECREASE-IV). Ann Surg 2009; 249:921926.
  25. American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American Society of Echocardiography; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Rhythm Society; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society for Vascular Medicine; Society for Vascular Surgery; Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. 2009 ACCF/AHA focused update on perioperative beta blockade incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:e13e118.
  26. Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); Poldermans D, Bax JJ, Boersma E, et al. Guidelines for preoperative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:27692812.
  27. London MJ, Hur K, Schwartz GG, Henderson WG. Association of perioperative beta-blockade with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA 2013; 309:17041713.
  28. Andersson C, Mérie C, Jørgensen M, et al. Association of beta-blocker therapy with risks of adverse cardiovascular events and deaths in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:336344.
  29. Bouri S, Shun-Shin MJ, Cole GD, Mayet J, Francis DP. Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of beta-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart 2014; 100:456464.
  30. Guay J, Ochroch EA. Beta-blocking agents for surgery: influence on mortality and major outcomes. A meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27:834844.
  31. Dai N, Xu D, Zhang J, et al. Different beta-blockers and initiation time in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Am J Med Sci 2014; 347:235244.
  32. Baker JG. The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists at the human beta1, beta2 and beta3 adrenoceptors. Br J Pharmacol 2005; 144:317322.
  33. Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN, Karkouti K, et al. Acute surgical anemia influences the cardioprotective effects of beta-blockade: a single-center, propensity-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:2533.
  34. Le Manach Y, Collins GS, Ibanez C, et al. Impact of perioperative bleeding on the protective effect of beta-blockers during infrarenal aortic reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2012; 117:12031211.
  35. Badgett RG, Lawrence VA, Cohn SL. Variations in pharmacology of beta-blockers may contribute to heterogeneous results in trials of perioperative beta-blockade. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:585592.
  36. Redelmeier D, Scales D, Kopp A. Beta blockers for elective surgery in elderly patients: population based, retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2005; 331:932.
  37. Wallace AW, Au S, Cason BA. Perioperative beta-blockade: atenolol is associated with reduced mortality when compared to metoprolol. Anesthesiology 2011; 114:824836.
  38. Mashour GA, Sharifpour M, Freundlich RE, et al. Perioperative metoprolol and risk of stroke after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:13401346.
  39. Ashes C, Judelman S, Wijeysundera DN, et al. Selective beta1-antagonism with bisoprolol is associated with fewer postoperative strokes than atenolol or metoprolol: a single-center cohort study of 44,092 consecutive patients. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:777787.
  40. Selim M. Perioperative stroke. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:706713.
  41. van Lier F, Schouten O, van Domburg RT, et al. Effect of chronic beta-blocker use on stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104:429433.
  42. van Lier F, Schouten O, Hoeks SE, et al. Impact of prophylactic beta-blocker therapy to prevent stroke after noncardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105:4347.
  43. Devereaux PJ, Beattie WS, Choi PT, et al. How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005; 331:313321.
  44. McGory ML, Maggard MA, Ko CY. A meta-analysis of perioperative beta blockade: what is the actual risk reduction? Surgery 2005; 138:171179.
  45. Schouten O, Shaw LJ, Boersma E, et al. A meta-analysis of safety and effectiveness of perioperative beta-blocker use for the prevention of cardiac events in different types of noncardiac surgery. Coron Artery Dis 2006; 17:173179.
  46. Wiesbauer F, Schlager O, Domanovits H, et al. Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:2741.
  47. Bangalore S, Wetterslev J, Pranesh S, Sawhney S, Gluud C, Messerli FH. Perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2008; 372:19621976.
  48. Flu WJ, van Kuijk JP, Chonchol M, et al. Timing of preoperative beta-blocker treatment in vascular surgery patients: influence on postoperative outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:19221929.
  49. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Wijeysundera HC, Yun L, Austin PC, Ko DT. Duration of preoperative beta-blockade and outcomes after major elective noncardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2014; 30:217223.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(8)
Page Number
501-512
Page Number
501-512
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: The evidence continues to evolve
Display Headline
Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: The evidence continues to evolve
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as a history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation, they should be started on a beta-blocker before surgery if time permits.
  • Of the various beta-blockers, the cardioselective ones appear to be preferable in the perioperative setting.
  • Beta-blockers may need to be started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and used only in patients at high risk (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.
  • Further clinical trials are necessary to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke, which was increased in the large Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

A serious complication of a common stress test

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 14:05
Display Headline
A serious complication of a common stress test

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Drs. Buitrago et al in the May 2014 issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, “Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test.”1 It highlights a known, serious interaction between adenosine and dipyridamole (the latter contained in the aspirin-dipyridamole combination Aggrenox) and associated asystole in patients undergoing pharmacologic cardiac stress testing. This interaction is known in the cardiology literature, as it was noted in the current guidelines for pharmacologic stress testing.2 However, I would like to discuss a few points with the authors for a better understanding of the case.

First, the underlying rhythm before the development of complete atrioventricular (AV) dissociation and asystole was significant for second-degree AV block (Mobitz type I, Wenckebach). Second- or third-degree AV block is considered a contraindication to adenosine because of the risk of exacerbating these conditions. This underlying AV nodal disease made dipyridamole not the only culprit. In addition, the patient had been on two agents (labetalol and clonidine) that have AV nodal-blocking properties. Electrolyte imbalances such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypocalcemia are another reason for delayed conduction and PR prolongation, and electrolyte levels should be checked and corrected properly before the stress test or coronary angiography. It would have been helpful if the authors had discussed these points for a better understanding of the drug-drug interaction.

Because of the increasing trend to admit patients with chest pain to observation units to rule out myocardial infarction, the case has a valuable teaching point, especially for hospitalists and emergency physicians in charge of patients admitted with chest pain.3 Since cardiologists rarely get involved in the care of these patients, careful review of medications before scheduling stress testing is of ultimate importance and should be emphasized in the discussion.

Lastly, the number of combined medications that are available commercially is increasing, which puts patients at higher risk of drug interactions. Hospitalists and internists taking care of patients, especially elderly patients, admitted from nursing homes and taking multiple medications should pay extra attention when reviewing medications with brand names.4,5 Furthermore, a 12-lead electrocardiogram should be reviewed, with special attention to the PR interval and QT segment. A pharmacy consultation could be valuable, especially in patients taking multiple drugs.6

References
  1. Buitrago I, Wolinsky D, Asher CR. Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test. Cleve Clin J Med 2014; 81:279280.
  2. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
  3. Graff LG, Dallara J, Ross MA, et al. Impact on the care of the emergency department chest pain patient from the chest pain evaluation registry (CHEPER) study. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:563568.
  4. Samaras N, Chevalley T, Samaras D, Gold G. Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 56:261269.
  5. Steinman MA, Hanlon JT. Managing medications in clinically complex elders: “There’s got to be a happy medium.” JAMA 2010; 304:15921601.
  6. Scott IA, Gray LC, Martin JH, Mitchell CA. Minimizing inappropriate medications in older populations: a 10-step conceptual framework. Am J Med 2012; 125:529537.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
401-402
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Author and Disclosure Information

M. Chadi Alraies, MD, FACP
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Drs. Buitrago et al in the May 2014 issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, “Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test.”1 It highlights a known, serious interaction between adenosine and dipyridamole (the latter contained in the aspirin-dipyridamole combination Aggrenox) and associated asystole in patients undergoing pharmacologic cardiac stress testing. This interaction is known in the cardiology literature, as it was noted in the current guidelines for pharmacologic stress testing.2 However, I would like to discuss a few points with the authors for a better understanding of the case.

First, the underlying rhythm before the development of complete atrioventricular (AV) dissociation and asystole was significant for second-degree AV block (Mobitz type I, Wenckebach). Second- or third-degree AV block is considered a contraindication to adenosine because of the risk of exacerbating these conditions. This underlying AV nodal disease made dipyridamole not the only culprit. In addition, the patient had been on two agents (labetalol and clonidine) that have AV nodal-blocking properties. Electrolyte imbalances such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypocalcemia are another reason for delayed conduction and PR prolongation, and electrolyte levels should be checked and corrected properly before the stress test or coronary angiography. It would have been helpful if the authors had discussed these points for a better understanding of the drug-drug interaction.

Because of the increasing trend to admit patients with chest pain to observation units to rule out myocardial infarction, the case has a valuable teaching point, especially for hospitalists and emergency physicians in charge of patients admitted with chest pain.3 Since cardiologists rarely get involved in the care of these patients, careful review of medications before scheduling stress testing is of ultimate importance and should be emphasized in the discussion.

Lastly, the number of combined medications that are available commercially is increasing, which puts patients at higher risk of drug interactions. Hospitalists and internists taking care of patients, especially elderly patients, admitted from nursing homes and taking multiple medications should pay extra attention when reviewing medications with brand names.4,5 Furthermore, a 12-lead electrocardiogram should be reviewed, with special attention to the PR interval and QT segment. A pharmacy consultation could be valuable, especially in patients taking multiple drugs.6

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Drs. Buitrago et al in the May 2014 issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, “Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test.”1 It highlights a known, serious interaction between adenosine and dipyridamole (the latter contained in the aspirin-dipyridamole combination Aggrenox) and associated asystole in patients undergoing pharmacologic cardiac stress testing. This interaction is known in the cardiology literature, as it was noted in the current guidelines for pharmacologic stress testing.2 However, I would like to discuss a few points with the authors for a better understanding of the case.

First, the underlying rhythm before the development of complete atrioventricular (AV) dissociation and asystole was significant for second-degree AV block (Mobitz type I, Wenckebach). Second- or third-degree AV block is considered a contraindication to adenosine because of the risk of exacerbating these conditions. This underlying AV nodal disease made dipyridamole not the only culprit. In addition, the patient had been on two agents (labetalol and clonidine) that have AV nodal-blocking properties. Electrolyte imbalances such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypocalcemia are another reason for delayed conduction and PR prolongation, and electrolyte levels should be checked and corrected properly before the stress test or coronary angiography. It would have been helpful if the authors had discussed these points for a better understanding of the drug-drug interaction.

Because of the increasing trend to admit patients with chest pain to observation units to rule out myocardial infarction, the case has a valuable teaching point, especially for hospitalists and emergency physicians in charge of patients admitted with chest pain.3 Since cardiologists rarely get involved in the care of these patients, careful review of medications before scheduling stress testing is of ultimate importance and should be emphasized in the discussion.

Lastly, the number of combined medications that are available commercially is increasing, which puts patients at higher risk of drug interactions. Hospitalists and internists taking care of patients, especially elderly patients, admitted from nursing homes and taking multiple medications should pay extra attention when reviewing medications with brand names.4,5 Furthermore, a 12-lead electrocardiogram should be reviewed, with special attention to the PR interval and QT segment. A pharmacy consultation could be valuable, especially in patients taking multiple drugs.6

References
  1. Buitrago I, Wolinsky D, Asher CR. Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test. Cleve Clin J Med 2014; 81:279280.
  2. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
  3. Graff LG, Dallara J, Ross MA, et al. Impact on the care of the emergency department chest pain patient from the chest pain evaluation registry (CHEPER) study. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:563568.
  4. Samaras N, Chevalley T, Samaras D, Gold G. Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 56:261269.
  5. Steinman MA, Hanlon JT. Managing medications in clinically complex elders: “There’s got to be a happy medium.” JAMA 2010; 304:15921601.
  6. Scott IA, Gray LC, Martin JH, Mitchell CA. Minimizing inappropriate medications in older populations: a 10-step conceptual framework. Am J Med 2012; 125:529537.
References
  1. Buitrago I, Wolinsky D, Asher CR. Syncope during a pharmacologic nuclear stress test. Cleve Clin J Med 2014; 81:279280.
  2. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
  3. Graff LG, Dallara J, Ross MA, et al. Impact on the care of the emergency department chest pain patient from the chest pain evaluation registry (CHEPER) study. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:563568.
  4. Samaras N, Chevalley T, Samaras D, Gold G. Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 56:261269.
  5. Steinman MA, Hanlon JT. Managing medications in clinically complex elders: “There’s got to be a happy medium.” JAMA 2010; 304:15921601.
  6. Scott IA, Gray LC, Martin JH, Mitchell CA. Minimizing inappropriate medications in older populations: a 10-step conceptual framework. Am J Med 2012; 125:529537.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
401-402
Page Number
401-402
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
A serious complication of a common stress test
Display Headline
A serious complication of a common stress test
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

In reply: A serious complication of a common stress test

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 14:06
Display Headline
In reply: A serious complication of a common stress test

In Reply: We appreciate the interest and comments of Dr. Alraies. We would like to clarify that the patient’s baseline electrocardiogram before the nuclear stress test was normal. Second-degree atrioventricular (AV) block (Mobitz type I) was evident only during adenosine infusion before ventricular asystole. The patient was on two AV nodal blockers (labetalol and clonidine) but had no underlying conduction disease. There is no contraindication to continuing these agents before pharmacologic stress testing. In addition, the patient’s electrolyte levels were within normal ranges before testing.

We agree that the valuable teaching point for clinicians is to appreciate the contraindication to and consequences of the use of dipyridamole-containing oral medications and either adenosine or regadenoson during pharmacologic stress testing. As Dr. Alraies points out, most cardiologists may be familiar with this interaction, but a large proportion of stress tests are ordered by emergency room physicians, internists, and hospitalists who are not. Still, the overall incidence of side effects with pharmacologic stress testing is very low and comparable to that with exercise testing, with safety enhanced by following the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) guidelines for performing stress myocardial perfusion imaging.1 Avoidance of this interaction may be enhanced through education, but also by using checklists and building notifications into the electronic medical record when ordering pharmacologic stress testing. Of note, according to the ASNC guidelines, the use of intravenous dipyridamole as a stress agent is a safe alternative for pharmacologic stress testing in patients taking oral dipyridamole-containing medications.

References
  1. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Ivan Buitrago, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Craig Asher, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

David Wolinsky, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
401-402
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Ivan Buitrago, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Craig Asher, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

David Wolinsky, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Author and Disclosure Information

Ivan Buitrago, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Craig Asher, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

David Wolinsky, MD
Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

In Reply: We appreciate the interest and comments of Dr. Alraies. We would like to clarify that the patient’s baseline electrocardiogram before the nuclear stress test was normal. Second-degree atrioventricular (AV) block (Mobitz type I) was evident only during adenosine infusion before ventricular asystole. The patient was on two AV nodal blockers (labetalol and clonidine) but had no underlying conduction disease. There is no contraindication to continuing these agents before pharmacologic stress testing. In addition, the patient’s electrolyte levels were within normal ranges before testing.

We agree that the valuable teaching point for clinicians is to appreciate the contraindication to and consequences of the use of dipyridamole-containing oral medications and either adenosine or regadenoson during pharmacologic stress testing. As Dr. Alraies points out, most cardiologists may be familiar with this interaction, but a large proportion of stress tests are ordered by emergency room physicians, internists, and hospitalists who are not. Still, the overall incidence of side effects with pharmacologic stress testing is very low and comparable to that with exercise testing, with safety enhanced by following the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) guidelines for performing stress myocardial perfusion imaging.1 Avoidance of this interaction may be enhanced through education, but also by using checklists and building notifications into the electronic medical record when ordering pharmacologic stress testing. Of note, according to the ASNC guidelines, the use of intravenous dipyridamole as a stress agent is a safe alternative for pharmacologic stress testing in patients taking oral dipyridamole-containing medications.

In Reply: We appreciate the interest and comments of Dr. Alraies. We would like to clarify that the patient’s baseline electrocardiogram before the nuclear stress test was normal. Second-degree atrioventricular (AV) block (Mobitz type I) was evident only during adenosine infusion before ventricular asystole. The patient was on two AV nodal blockers (labetalol and clonidine) but had no underlying conduction disease. There is no contraindication to continuing these agents before pharmacologic stress testing. In addition, the patient’s electrolyte levels were within normal ranges before testing.

We agree that the valuable teaching point for clinicians is to appreciate the contraindication to and consequences of the use of dipyridamole-containing oral medications and either adenosine or regadenoson during pharmacologic stress testing. As Dr. Alraies points out, most cardiologists may be familiar with this interaction, but a large proportion of stress tests are ordered by emergency room physicians, internists, and hospitalists who are not. Still, the overall incidence of side effects with pharmacologic stress testing is very low and comparable to that with exercise testing, with safety enhanced by following the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) guidelines for performing stress myocardial perfusion imaging.1 Avoidance of this interaction may be enhanced through education, but also by using checklists and building notifications into the electronic medical record when ordering pharmacologic stress testing. Of note, according to the ASNC guidelines, the use of intravenous dipyridamole as a stress agent is a safe alternative for pharmacologic stress testing in patients taking oral dipyridamole-containing medications.

References
  1. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
References
  1. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS; Quality Assurance Committee of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:e80e90.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
401-402
Page Number
401-402
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
In reply: A serious complication of a common stress test
Display Headline
In reply: A serious complication of a common stress test
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Intimate partner violence: How you can help female survivors

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 13:56
Display Headline
Intimate partner violence: How you can help female survivors

Also known as “domestic violence” and “spouse abuse,” intimate partner violence (IPV) is now the term defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to include physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, and psychological or emotional abuse by a current or former spouse, common-law spouse, nonmarital dating partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend of the same or opposite sex.1 Although IPV is often hidden or kept secret by those affected, it is a highly prevalent issue, especially in women. Knowing how to broach the subject and provide appropriate support in a caring and nonjudgmental manner are the keys to helping a woman move forward in her readiness and ability to improve her situation.

See related patient information

ONE IN THREE WOMEN EXPERIENCES IPV IN HER LIFE

As clinicians, we have all seen patients who have been affected by IPV—even if we did not realize it at the time. Indeed, 36% of women in the United States (approximately 42.4 million) have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and 6% (approximately 7 million) have experienced these forms of IPV within the past 12 months.2

ASSOCIATION WITH MURDER

From 30% to 70% of women who are murdered are killed by a current or former intimate partner.3,4 Of those killed by their partner, two-thirds had previously reported physical assault, and 83% had been threatened by the man who eventually killed them.4 In another study, 44% of IPV murder victims had presented to an emergency department within 2 years of their murder.5

PHYSICAL EFFECTS NOT ALWAYS APPARENT

Although 41% of women who experience IPV suffer physical injury from their attacks, only 28% of those who are injured seek medical care.6 Because injuries are often absent or no longer apparent when an IPV victim decides to get help, it is important to be aware of the clinical signs associated with IPV:

  • Gastrointestinal disorders7
  • Depression8
  • Anxiety
  • Chronic pain syndromes9
  • Substance abuse
  • Suicidal ideation.10

In women of childbearing age, IPV is associated with unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, condom non-use,11,12 inconsistent condom use,13 and fear of talking about condom use.11,12 Coerced sexual experiences (eg, sexual intercourse that was not wanted or consented to) are common, with 28% to 42% of college women reporting at least one such experience. In more than three quarters of women who have been sexually assaulted, the first experience occurred before age 25.14,15

One-quarter of women ages 16 to 29 have experienced reproductive coercion, which includes birth control sabotage or pregnancy coercion by the active male partner.16 Among women reporting birth control sabotage, 79% had also been victims of physical or sexual IPV.16

The cost of providing health care to women experiencing IPV is 1.4 to 2.5 times higher than that of the nonabused population. Studies have shown that female victims of both physical and nonphysical (eg, emotional or verbal) IPV are more likely to use emergency, mental health, and outpatient health care services. The economic toll of IPV, including health care and costs from lost productivity and premature death, ranges from $2.3 to $8.3 billion per year.17,18

ASK FEMALE PATIENTS ABOUT IPV

In the early 1990s, various medical organizations began issuing policy statements that endorsed screening for IPV.19–22 Since 1992, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has required hospitals and clinics to provide assistance to those experiencing IPV.23 Although the United States Preventive Services Task Force initially found insufficient evidence to support regular IPV screening in health care settings,24–27 the group reversed its position in 2012 after a review of more recent studies. The group now recommends that clinicians address IPV with all women of childbearing age.28

A Cochrane review found that IPV screening increased identification of IPV survivors.29 Female participants in many studies wanted clinicians to ask routinely about violence and to provide information on community and legal resources.30,31

How should we ask about IPV?

Although various sets of screening questions and tools are available, no one instrument is considered better than the others. However, women experiencing IPV have specific preferences regarding how they want clinicians to ask and talk about the topic. In one survey, women who had experienced IPV preferred that clinicians ask about it as part of the complete medical history, as long as it did not create “an atmosphere of interrogation.”32

The style in which a clinician asks about IPV may make a difference as well. In focus groups, immigrant Latina and Asian women who had experienced IPV stated that clinicians could facilitate open communication by initiating the discussion and exhibiting compassionate and supportive behavior during the visit.33 Being able to see the same clinician at each visit also enhanced clinician-patient communication.33

In a study of IPV screening in emergency room settings, most clinicians asked about IPV in a perfunctory, direct manner—generally some variant of, “Are you a victim of domestic violence?” In this study, patient IPV disclosure occurred more often when clinicians used an open-ended approach such as, “Tell me what happened,” or when clinicians probed for possible IPV (eg, “What do you think may be causing some of this stress?”).34

In a focus group, female IPV survivors described feeling stigmatized or invalidated when clinicians were condescending, judgmental, or dismissive.35 Nonjudgmental and supportive communication decreased the women’s sense of isolation and led to positive outcomes such as increased awareness of IPV as a problem, decreased isolation, and feeling that the clinician cared.35

When addressing IPV, clinicians should explain why they are asking about it because it allows the woman to understand the context of the inquiry and to feel more comfortable about disclosing IPV. If the query is a regular part of a general screening or history-taking, for example, they should frame the question to make that point apparent. For example, “Because we know that many women in the United States experience physical, sexual or emotional violence from their romantic partners, I like to ask all of my patients whether they have been hurt or have felt threatened or afraid in a current or past relationship.”

In situations in which clinicians are concerned about IPV with a particular patient, they should explicitly share their concerns and desire to help the patient. One IPV survivor offered this advice: “Just look at the patient like she is your friend. Call her by her name. For instance, say ‘Sally, is he hurting you? Are you having problems? If you need help, I have some [phone] numbers.’ Personalize the encounter.”

It is also important to address IPV in a manner that ensures the patient’s safety, confidentiality, and dignity. When having this type of sensitive conversation, the patient should ideally be clothed and alone—without others present, particularly her partner. Professional interpreters should be available to women who do not speak English. The clinician should maintain eye contact, smile to communicate friendliness, and use a supportive tone.36

 

 

Just asking may be an intervention

Qualitative studies have suggested that just the act of asking about IPV in a nonjudgmental and compassionate manner is helpful to women experiencing IPV.35,37 Doing so not only helps women recognize the abuse, but also begins to decrease their sense of isolation and increase their awareness of helpful resources. It also gives the patient a sense that the clinician cares about her situation.35 As a result, experts have begun to recommend that health clinicians view asking about IPV not merely as a screening tool, but as a potentially therapeutic intervention in and of itself.35,37,38

HOW TO HELP

What to do when a woman discloses IPV

Female survivors, advocates, and health care clinicians who care for abused women suggest responding to a positive disclosure of IPV by providing the following:

Validation. The IPV perpetrator will often attempt to justify the violence and abuse by shifting some of the blame or responsibility for the violence onto the victim. This “brainwashing” leads to self-blame and a diminished sense of self-worth. However, clinicians can help reverse this mindset by acknowledging the woman’s disclosure and emphasizing that she did not deserve the abuse or violence. An example of such a statement is, “I am so very sorry that you went through that with your partner. You definitely did not deserve that. No one should ever be hurt by or afraid of the people who are supposed to love them.” Providing validation helps women recognize that the violence was a problem they did not deserve.38,39

Support. Women who have experienced IPV appreciate feeling supported and cared for by their health care clinician. Even if the patient is not ready to take any definitive action regarding her relationship or situation, knowing that her clinician and the health care setting are resources and sources of support is both comforting and empowering.35,40 Clinicians can communicate this support by stating, “I want you to know that whatever happens and whatever you decide, we are here for you.”

Respect for autonomy. Women experiencing IPV best understand their own situation and its various complexities and so they know best what they can do, cannot do, or need to do. As such, clinicians must respect a woman’s autonomy and preserve her ability to express her own needs and desires and make her own decisions. Prescribing a plan of action or giving commands to IPV victims could further perpetuate their sense of disempowerment and lack of control over their life.

Information. Providing referral information or hotline numbers to community domestic violence programs is helpful. However, not all women feel safe or comfortable taking printed brochures or written information with them because their abusive partner may find it. Thus, clinicians should ask if the patient can take the information safely or offer to write the numbers down without labeling them if she is afraid. The National Domestic Violence hotline is a 24-hour toll-free resource that will help women locate and contact shelters and other support services in their own community. The number, 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), is easy to memorize and thus is an easy resource to pass along quickly and safely. Other national organizations such as Futures Without Violence (formerly known as the Family Violence Prevention Fund) and the National Coalition Against Violence also provide links to local resources (Table 1).

Safety planning. Discussing the need for a safety plan will help the patient prepare for future abusive episodes. Even women who report that they are no longer in an abusive relationship should be asked about their current safety needs and concerns because they often remain in contact with abusive partners even after a relationship has ended.

When discussing safety planning, clinicians should ask the woman if she is currently safe or if she needs shelter. If she intends to return to or is still in contact with her batterer, ask if she has a plan for what to do or how to escape if the violence occurs again. Advise the patient to:

  • Hide money so that she can leave quickly
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security Number, and other important documents and keep them hidden and accessible
  • Make a spare car key
  • Have a list of hotline numbers
  • Develop a code with friends, family, and neighbors that will let them know she needs immediate help.

Studies show that discussing safety-promoting behaviors increases the number of them that are used by IPV victims.41 A detailed list that can be shared with patients is provided in the patient information page that accompanies this article.42 Examples of personalized safety plans are available from the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence at its website, www.ncdsv.org/images/NCDSV_DVSafetyPlan_updated2013.pdf.

Danger assessment. Several researchers have examined potential risk factors associated with increased risk of homicide.43 Table 2 lists some of the characteristics associated with an increased risk of homicide in IPV situations.42 From this work, a danger assessment tool and scoring system has been developed. This tool and training on how to use it are available for free at www.dangerassessment.org. Although there are currently no outcome data on the benefits or risks of using this instrument, its objective is to increase women’s awareness of their danger level and individualize their safety counseling.

Proper documentation. Victim advocates and lawyers working on behalf of IPV victims emphasize that documentation by a medical provider can help a woman with her legal case. This documentation should be clear, legible, and as detailed as possible. These details should include a patient’s own words set off by quotation marks, a description or body map illustrating associated injuries or physical signs corroborating the violence, and a description of the patient’s demeanor or signs of emotion. Clinicians should avoid legal terms such as “alleges” or “alleged perpetrator” and should either define or avoid abbreviations that may be considered ambiguous in a legal proceeding (eg, clinicians should write out the words “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence” rather than using “DV” or “IPV”).44 Most states have passed laws that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against IPV victims; insurance companies can no longer deny women coverage for seeking care related to IPV.45

 

 

A nonthreatening physical examination. Women who have experienced physical or sexual violence may feel anxious or experience added trauma during certain portions of the physical examination. Women who have been raped or otherwise sexually abused may have difficulty tolerating a pelvic examination, for example. Others who have been choked or grabbed by the neck may experience distress during palpation of the thyroid or cervical lymph nodes. The oropharyngeal examination may be challenging for women who have experienced forced oral sex or who may have had objects such as the barrel of a gun forced into their mouth. Asking women who have experienced IPV what aspects of the physical examination they may find difficult and how this could be made easier allows the patient and clinician to work together to develop strategies for or alternatives to necessary examinations or testing.

Before starting an examination, clinicians should explain what will happen and then ask the patient for her permission before moving on to the next step. Doing so creates a sense of control in an otherwise challenging and potentially traumatizing examination.

Disclosure of mandatory IPV reporting. Many states require health care providers to report any injuries caused by a weapon or criminal act to police or other official institutions.45,46 Several of these states specify that this reporting should occur during an IPV evaluation.

Mandatory reporting of IPV to police is highly controversial.47–49 Opponents of these laws argue that they do not benefit victims because they do not respect autonomy, they violate patient-clinician confidentiality, and they violate informed consent.47 Female IPV victims indicate that they would be less likely to disclose IPV and seek help if they knew it had to be reported.50–53 In a survey of California physicians, 59% stated that they might not comply with reporting laws if the patient objected.54

In states with mandatory reporting laws, clinicians can advocate for their patients by disclosing whether IPV must be reported before beginning their examination. The Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence devised this sample statement:

“I do have to let you know that under state law, I am obligated to make a police report to (name police agency with jurisdiction over the facility), if I/we are treating someone for any injury sustained by means of violence (tailor this information to the specifics of your state law). So, if you would have any concerns about that, I would encourage you to speak with one of the domestic violence advocates/counselors at (DV agency), who are able to provide confidential services and help without being required to make a police report.”55

The Compendium of State Statutes and Polices on Domestic Violence and Health Care by Futures Without Violence is an excellent reference that describes current state laws and policies regarding domestic violence and includes descriptions of the specific characteristics of each state’s mandatory reporting laws and their implications for health care providers. A copy can be downloaded from www.futureswithout-violence.org/content/features/detail/1584/.

What not to do

Clinicians should not ignore or minimize the extent of IPV, make excuses for the batterer, or blame the woman.32,56,57 They also should not inadvertently blame or criticize the woman by asking her, “What did you do to deserve this?” or “Why don’t you just leave?”57

While leaving a violent relationship is an obvious solution, many women experiencing IPV are either unwilling or unable to do so. In fact, leaving the batterer can be just as dangerous as staying. In a North Carolina study, half of all women killed by their partner had divorced or broken up with the partner immediately before the murder.4

What to do when a woman does not disclose IPV

Women who have experienced IPV often deny the violence to others out of fear. So a denial of violence, even in highly suspicious cases, can be expected. Abused patients often want help but are confused and afraid to ask for it.58,59 Providing easy and anonymous access to IPV information and resources through posters, flyers, brochures, and booklets will allow any woman—regardless of disclosure—to obtain help.36

In one IPV trial, all women in a family planning clinic who were in the intervention group were given information about IPV and how it can affect sexual and reproductive health, whether or not they disclosed. Compared with women in the control group, women who received the intervention—both those who did and did not experience IPV—were 63% more likely than those in the control group to end a relationship because they perceived it to be unhealthy or unsafe. In this case, all women—not just those who were victims—benefited from receiving information about IPV.60

PROVIDERS’ SUPPORT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, IMPROVES OUTCOMES

Patients may seek help for and find safety from IPV in stages or steps, and it may take them several months or even years to do so.61–63 In this sense, then, IPV is an issue that is not likely to be “cured” or changed in a single medical visit. In addition, a single visit may not be associated with direct health and safety outcomes. However, a patient is more likely to make changes if she has supportive and informative interaction with a caring, nonjudgmental clinician who can increase her awareness of IPV and IPV resources and promote an improved sense of self-efficacy or perceived power.40

For example, in a study in which health clinicians expressed concern about potential IPV health effects and offered support services such as counseling, 67% of women used one of those resources at least once.40 In another study, women who talked to a health care provider about their abuse were almost four times more likely to use an IPV intervention (eg, advocacy, shelter, restraining order) than women who did not talk to their provider. Those who used an IPV intervention were 2.6 times more likely to leave their abusive relationship, and those who left reported improved physical health.64

Thus, health care providers can have a positive effect by addressing this complex and difficult issue. The power and influence of a provider’s kindness, empathy, and support cannot be overestimated in their ability to improve the safety and well-being of women dealing with IPV.

References
  1. Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA; 1999. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_surveillance/intimate%20partner%20violence.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  2. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al; Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  3. Kellermann AL, Mercy JA. Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. J Trauma 1992; 33:15.
  4. Moracco KE, Runywan CW, Butts JD. Femicide in North Carolina, 1991–1993: a statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Studies 1998; 4:422446.
  5. Wadman MC, Muelleman RL. Domestic violence homicides: ED use before victimization. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17:689691.
  6. Catalano SM; United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. Intimate partner violence in the United States: 2007. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1000. Accessed February 19, 2014.
  7. Drossman DA, Talley NJ, Leserman J, Olden KW, Barreiro MA. Sexual and physical abuse and gastrointestinal illness. Review and recommendations. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:782794.
  8. Scholle SH, Rost KM, Golding JM. Physical abuse among depressed women. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:607613.
  9. Walling MK, O’Hara MW, Reiter RC, Milburn AK, Lilly G, Vincent SD. Abuse history and chronic pain in women: II. A multivariate analysis of abuse and psychological morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84:200206.
  10. McCauley J, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Derogatis LR, Bass EB. Relation of low-severity violence to women’s health. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:687691.
  11. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. The effects of an abusive primary partner on the condom use and sexual negotiation practices of African-American women. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:10161018.
  12. Sales JM, Salazar LF, Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ, Rose E, Crosby RA. The mediating role of partner communication skills on HIV/STD-associated risk behaviors in young African American females with a history of sexual violence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162:432438.
  13. Davila YR, Brackley MH. Mexican and Mexican American women in a battered women’s shelter: barriers to condom negotiation for HIV/AIDS prevention. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1999; 20:333355.
  14. Tjaden P, Thoennes N; National Institute of Justice; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC; 1998. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  15. Masho SW, Odor RK, Adera T. Sexual assault in Virginia: a population-based study. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:157166.
  16. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception 2010; 81:316322.
  17. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Serv Res 2009; 44:10521067.
  18. Rivara FP, Anderson ML, Fishman P, et al. Healthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med 2007; 32:8996.
  19. American Nurses Association. Position statement on physical violence against women. Washington, DC; 1991.
  20. Physicians and domestic violence. Ethical considerations. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA 1992; 267:31903193.
  21. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Screening tools: domestic violence. http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Violence_Against_Women/Screening_Tools__Domestic_Violence. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  22. Lee D, James L, Sawires P; The Family Violence Prevention Fund. Preventing domestic violence: clinical guidelines on routine screening. San Francisco, CA; 1999. http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/screpol.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  23. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation manual for hospitals. Chicago, IL; 1992.
  24. US Department of Health and Human Services. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Washington, DC; 1996.
  25. Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ 2002; 325:314.
  26. Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:387396.
  27. Chamberlain L. The USPSTF recommendation on intimate partner violence: what we can learn from it and what we can do about it. Fam Viol Prev Health Pract 2005; 1:124.
  28. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158:478486.
  29. Taft A, O’Doherty L, Hegarty K, Ramsay J, Davidson L, Feder G. Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4:CD007007.
  30. McNutt LA, Carlson BE, Gagen D, Winterbauer N. Reproductive violence screening in primary care: perspectives and experiences of patients and battered women. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1999; 54:8590.
  31. Friedman LS, Samet JH, Roberts MS, Hudlin M, Hans P. Inquiry about victimization experiences. A survey of patient p and physician practices. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152:11861190.
  32. Hamberger LK, Ambuel B, Marbella A, Donze J. Physician interaction with battered women: the women’s perspective. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7:575582.
  33. Rodriguez MA, Bauer HM, Flores-Ortiz Y, Szkupinski-Quiroga S. Factors affecting patient-physician communication for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. J Fam Pract 1998; 47:309311.
  34. Rhodes KV, Frankel RM, Levinthal N, Prenoveau E, Bailey J, Levinson W. “You’re not a victim of domestic violence, are you?” Provider patient communication about domestic violence”. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:620627.
  35. Chang JC, Decker M, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. What happens when health care providers ask about intimate partner violence? A description of consequences from the perspectives of female survivors. J Am Med Womens Assoc 2003; 58:7681.
  36. Chang JC, Decker MR, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. Asking about intimate partner violence: advice from female survivors to health care providers. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 59:141147.
  37. Hathaway JE, Willis G, Zimmer B. Listening to survivors’ voices: addressing partner abuse in the health care setting. Violence Against Women 2002; 8:687716.
  38. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Bronstone A, Moe J, Abercrombie P. A qualitative analysis of how physicians with expertise in domestic violence approach the identification of victims. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:578584.
  39. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Milliken N, Berlin M, Bronstone A, Moe J. Interventions that help victims of domestic violence. A qualitative analysis of physicians’ experiences. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:889895.
  40. McCaw B, Bauer HM, Berman WH, Mooney L, Holmberg M, Hunkeler E. Women referred for on-site domestic violence services in a managed care organization. Women Health 2002; 35:2340.
  41. McFarlane J, Malecha A, Gist J, et al. An intervention to increase safety behaviors of abused women: results of a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res 2002; 51:347354.
  42. Chang JC. Domestic violence. In:Bieber EJ, Sanfilippo JS, Horowitz IR, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:7989.
  43. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:10891097.
  44. Isaac NE, Enos V; National Institute of Justice. Documenting domestic violence: how health care providers can help victims. Research in Brief, 2001. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188564.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  45. Durborow N, Lizdas KC, O’Flaherty A, Marjavi A; Futures Without Violence. Compendium of state and US terrritory statutes and policies on domestic violence and health care, 2010. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/content/features/detail/1584/. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  46. Hyman A, Schillinger D, Lo B. Laws mandating reporting of domestic violence. Do they promote patient well-being? JAMA 1995; 273:17811787.
  47. Hyman A, Chez RA. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers: a misguided approach. Womens Health Issues 1995; 5:208213.
  48. Knight MA. Ethical debate: should doctors be more proactive as advocates for victims of violence? The police surgeon’s view: medical paternalism is unacceptable. BMJ 1995; 311:16201621.
  49. Hyman A; Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by healthcare providers: a policy paper. San Francisco, CA; 1997. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/HealthCare/mandatory_policypaper.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  50. Rodriguez MA, Craig AM, Mooney DR, Bauer HM. Patient attitudes about mandatory reporting of domestic violence. Implications for health care professionals. West J Med 1998; 169:337341.
  51. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  52. Sachs CJ, Koziol-McLain J, Glass N, Webster D, Campbell J. A population-based survey assessing support for mandatory domestic violence reporting by health care personnel. Women Health 2002; 35:121133.
  53. Sullivan CM, Hagen LA. Survivors’ opinions about mandatory reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical professionals. Affilia 2005; 20:116.
  54. Rodriguez MA, McLoughlin E, Bauer HM, Paredes V, Grumbach K. Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence to police: views of physicians in California. Am J Public Health 1999; 89:575578.
  55. Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence to law enforcement by health care providers: a guide for advocates working to respond to or amend reporting laws related to domestic violence. www.healthcaresaboutipv.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/3/files/2012/09/Mandatory_Reporting_of_DV_to_Law-Enforcement_by_HCP.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  56. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  57. Gerbert B, Johnston K, Caspers N, Bleecker T, Woods A, Rosenbaum A. Experiences of battered women in health care settings: a qualitative study. Women Health 1996; 24:117.
  58. Chang JC, Cluss PA, Ranieri L, et al. Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:2130.
  59. Rodriguez MA, Quiroga SS, Bauer HM. Breaking the silence. Battered women’s perspectives on medical care. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5:153158.
  60. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception 2011; 83:274280.
  61. Landenburger K. A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive relationship. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1989; 10:209227.
  62. Cluss PA, Chang JC, Hawker L, et al. The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence: support for a psychosocial readiness model. Womens Health Issues 2006; 16:262274.
  63. Gerbert B, Abercrombie P, Caspers N, Love C, Bronstone A. How health care providers help battered women: the survivor’s perspective. Women Health 1999; 29:115135.
  64. McCloskey LA, Lichter E, Williams C, Gerber M, Wittenberg E, Ganz M. Assessing intimate partner violence in health care settings leads to women’s receipt of interventions and improved health. Public Health Rep 2006; 121:435444.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and Department of Medicine, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: jchang@mail.magee.edu

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
439-446
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and Department of Medicine, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: jchang@mail.magee.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and Department of Medicine, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, PA

Address: Judy C. Chang, MD, MPH, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213; e-mail: jchang@mail.magee.edu

Article PDF
Article PDF

Also known as “domestic violence” and “spouse abuse,” intimate partner violence (IPV) is now the term defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to include physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, and psychological or emotional abuse by a current or former spouse, common-law spouse, nonmarital dating partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend of the same or opposite sex.1 Although IPV is often hidden or kept secret by those affected, it is a highly prevalent issue, especially in women. Knowing how to broach the subject and provide appropriate support in a caring and nonjudgmental manner are the keys to helping a woman move forward in her readiness and ability to improve her situation.

See related patient information

ONE IN THREE WOMEN EXPERIENCES IPV IN HER LIFE

As clinicians, we have all seen patients who have been affected by IPV—even if we did not realize it at the time. Indeed, 36% of women in the United States (approximately 42.4 million) have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and 6% (approximately 7 million) have experienced these forms of IPV within the past 12 months.2

ASSOCIATION WITH MURDER

From 30% to 70% of women who are murdered are killed by a current or former intimate partner.3,4 Of those killed by their partner, two-thirds had previously reported physical assault, and 83% had been threatened by the man who eventually killed them.4 In another study, 44% of IPV murder victims had presented to an emergency department within 2 years of their murder.5

PHYSICAL EFFECTS NOT ALWAYS APPARENT

Although 41% of women who experience IPV suffer physical injury from their attacks, only 28% of those who are injured seek medical care.6 Because injuries are often absent or no longer apparent when an IPV victim decides to get help, it is important to be aware of the clinical signs associated with IPV:

  • Gastrointestinal disorders7
  • Depression8
  • Anxiety
  • Chronic pain syndromes9
  • Substance abuse
  • Suicidal ideation.10

In women of childbearing age, IPV is associated with unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, condom non-use,11,12 inconsistent condom use,13 and fear of talking about condom use.11,12 Coerced sexual experiences (eg, sexual intercourse that was not wanted or consented to) are common, with 28% to 42% of college women reporting at least one such experience. In more than three quarters of women who have been sexually assaulted, the first experience occurred before age 25.14,15

One-quarter of women ages 16 to 29 have experienced reproductive coercion, which includes birth control sabotage or pregnancy coercion by the active male partner.16 Among women reporting birth control sabotage, 79% had also been victims of physical or sexual IPV.16

The cost of providing health care to women experiencing IPV is 1.4 to 2.5 times higher than that of the nonabused population. Studies have shown that female victims of both physical and nonphysical (eg, emotional or verbal) IPV are more likely to use emergency, mental health, and outpatient health care services. The economic toll of IPV, including health care and costs from lost productivity and premature death, ranges from $2.3 to $8.3 billion per year.17,18

ASK FEMALE PATIENTS ABOUT IPV

In the early 1990s, various medical organizations began issuing policy statements that endorsed screening for IPV.19–22 Since 1992, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has required hospitals and clinics to provide assistance to those experiencing IPV.23 Although the United States Preventive Services Task Force initially found insufficient evidence to support regular IPV screening in health care settings,24–27 the group reversed its position in 2012 after a review of more recent studies. The group now recommends that clinicians address IPV with all women of childbearing age.28

A Cochrane review found that IPV screening increased identification of IPV survivors.29 Female participants in many studies wanted clinicians to ask routinely about violence and to provide information on community and legal resources.30,31

How should we ask about IPV?

Although various sets of screening questions and tools are available, no one instrument is considered better than the others. However, women experiencing IPV have specific preferences regarding how they want clinicians to ask and talk about the topic. In one survey, women who had experienced IPV preferred that clinicians ask about it as part of the complete medical history, as long as it did not create “an atmosphere of interrogation.”32

The style in which a clinician asks about IPV may make a difference as well. In focus groups, immigrant Latina and Asian women who had experienced IPV stated that clinicians could facilitate open communication by initiating the discussion and exhibiting compassionate and supportive behavior during the visit.33 Being able to see the same clinician at each visit also enhanced clinician-patient communication.33

In a study of IPV screening in emergency room settings, most clinicians asked about IPV in a perfunctory, direct manner—generally some variant of, “Are you a victim of domestic violence?” In this study, patient IPV disclosure occurred more often when clinicians used an open-ended approach such as, “Tell me what happened,” or when clinicians probed for possible IPV (eg, “What do you think may be causing some of this stress?”).34

In a focus group, female IPV survivors described feeling stigmatized or invalidated when clinicians were condescending, judgmental, or dismissive.35 Nonjudgmental and supportive communication decreased the women’s sense of isolation and led to positive outcomes such as increased awareness of IPV as a problem, decreased isolation, and feeling that the clinician cared.35

When addressing IPV, clinicians should explain why they are asking about it because it allows the woman to understand the context of the inquiry and to feel more comfortable about disclosing IPV. If the query is a regular part of a general screening or history-taking, for example, they should frame the question to make that point apparent. For example, “Because we know that many women in the United States experience physical, sexual or emotional violence from their romantic partners, I like to ask all of my patients whether they have been hurt or have felt threatened or afraid in a current or past relationship.”

In situations in which clinicians are concerned about IPV with a particular patient, they should explicitly share their concerns and desire to help the patient. One IPV survivor offered this advice: “Just look at the patient like she is your friend. Call her by her name. For instance, say ‘Sally, is he hurting you? Are you having problems? If you need help, I have some [phone] numbers.’ Personalize the encounter.”

It is also important to address IPV in a manner that ensures the patient’s safety, confidentiality, and dignity. When having this type of sensitive conversation, the patient should ideally be clothed and alone—without others present, particularly her partner. Professional interpreters should be available to women who do not speak English. The clinician should maintain eye contact, smile to communicate friendliness, and use a supportive tone.36

 

 

Just asking may be an intervention

Qualitative studies have suggested that just the act of asking about IPV in a nonjudgmental and compassionate manner is helpful to women experiencing IPV.35,37 Doing so not only helps women recognize the abuse, but also begins to decrease their sense of isolation and increase their awareness of helpful resources. It also gives the patient a sense that the clinician cares about her situation.35 As a result, experts have begun to recommend that health clinicians view asking about IPV not merely as a screening tool, but as a potentially therapeutic intervention in and of itself.35,37,38

HOW TO HELP

What to do when a woman discloses IPV

Female survivors, advocates, and health care clinicians who care for abused women suggest responding to a positive disclosure of IPV by providing the following:

Validation. The IPV perpetrator will often attempt to justify the violence and abuse by shifting some of the blame or responsibility for the violence onto the victim. This “brainwashing” leads to self-blame and a diminished sense of self-worth. However, clinicians can help reverse this mindset by acknowledging the woman’s disclosure and emphasizing that she did not deserve the abuse or violence. An example of such a statement is, “I am so very sorry that you went through that with your partner. You definitely did not deserve that. No one should ever be hurt by or afraid of the people who are supposed to love them.” Providing validation helps women recognize that the violence was a problem they did not deserve.38,39

Support. Women who have experienced IPV appreciate feeling supported and cared for by their health care clinician. Even if the patient is not ready to take any definitive action regarding her relationship or situation, knowing that her clinician and the health care setting are resources and sources of support is both comforting and empowering.35,40 Clinicians can communicate this support by stating, “I want you to know that whatever happens and whatever you decide, we are here for you.”

Respect for autonomy. Women experiencing IPV best understand their own situation and its various complexities and so they know best what they can do, cannot do, or need to do. As such, clinicians must respect a woman’s autonomy and preserve her ability to express her own needs and desires and make her own decisions. Prescribing a plan of action or giving commands to IPV victims could further perpetuate their sense of disempowerment and lack of control over their life.

Information. Providing referral information or hotline numbers to community domestic violence programs is helpful. However, not all women feel safe or comfortable taking printed brochures or written information with them because their abusive partner may find it. Thus, clinicians should ask if the patient can take the information safely or offer to write the numbers down without labeling them if she is afraid. The National Domestic Violence hotline is a 24-hour toll-free resource that will help women locate and contact shelters and other support services in their own community. The number, 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), is easy to memorize and thus is an easy resource to pass along quickly and safely. Other national organizations such as Futures Without Violence (formerly known as the Family Violence Prevention Fund) and the National Coalition Against Violence also provide links to local resources (Table 1).

Safety planning. Discussing the need for a safety plan will help the patient prepare for future abusive episodes. Even women who report that they are no longer in an abusive relationship should be asked about their current safety needs and concerns because they often remain in contact with abusive partners even after a relationship has ended.

When discussing safety planning, clinicians should ask the woman if she is currently safe or if she needs shelter. If she intends to return to or is still in contact with her batterer, ask if she has a plan for what to do or how to escape if the violence occurs again. Advise the patient to:

  • Hide money so that she can leave quickly
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security Number, and other important documents and keep them hidden and accessible
  • Make a spare car key
  • Have a list of hotline numbers
  • Develop a code with friends, family, and neighbors that will let them know she needs immediate help.

Studies show that discussing safety-promoting behaviors increases the number of them that are used by IPV victims.41 A detailed list that can be shared with patients is provided in the patient information page that accompanies this article.42 Examples of personalized safety plans are available from the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence at its website, www.ncdsv.org/images/NCDSV_DVSafetyPlan_updated2013.pdf.

Danger assessment. Several researchers have examined potential risk factors associated with increased risk of homicide.43 Table 2 lists some of the characteristics associated with an increased risk of homicide in IPV situations.42 From this work, a danger assessment tool and scoring system has been developed. This tool and training on how to use it are available for free at www.dangerassessment.org. Although there are currently no outcome data on the benefits or risks of using this instrument, its objective is to increase women’s awareness of their danger level and individualize their safety counseling.

Proper documentation. Victim advocates and lawyers working on behalf of IPV victims emphasize that documentation by a medical provider can help a woman with her legal case. This documentation should be clear, legible, and as detailed as possible. These details should include a patient’s own words set off by quotation marks, a description or body map illustrating associated injuries or physical signs corroborating the violence, and a description of the patient’s demeanor or signs of emotion. Clinicians should avoid legal terms such as “alleges” or “alleged perpetrator” and should either define or avoid abbreviations that may be considered ambiguous in a legal proceeding (eg, clinicians should write out the words “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence” rather than using “DV” or “IPV”).44 Most states have passed laws that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against IPV victims; insurance companies can no longer deny women coverage for seeking care related to IPV.45

 

 

A nonthreatening physical examination. Women who have experienced physical or sexual violence may feel anxious or experience added trauma during certain portions of the physical examination. Women who have been raped or otherwise sexually abused may have difficulty tolerating a pelvic examination, for example. Others who have been choked or grabbed by the neck may experience distress during palpation of the thyroid or cervical lymph nodes. The oropharyngeal examination may be challenging for women who have experienced forced oral sex or who may have had objects such as the barrel of a gun forced into their mouth. Asking women who have experienced IPV what aspects of the physical examination they may find difficult and how this could be made easier allows the patient and clinician to work together to develop strategies for or alternatives to necessary examinations or testing.

Before starting an examination, clinicians should explain what will happen and then ask the patient for her permission before moving on to the next step. Doing so creates a sense of control in an otherwise challenging and potentially traumatizing examination.

Disclosure of mandatory IPV reporting. Many states require health care providers to report any injuries caused by a weapon or criminal act to police or other official institutions.45,46 Several of these states specify that this reporting should occur during an IPV evaluation.

Mandatory reporting of IPV to police is highly controversial.47–49 Opponents of these laws argue that they do not benefit victims because they do not respect autonomy, they violate patient-clinician confidentiality, and they violate informed consent.47 Female IPV victims indicate that they would be less likely to disclose IPV and seek help if they knew it had to be reported.50–53 In a survey of California physicians, 59% stated that they might not comply with reporting laws if the patient objected.54

In states with mandatory reporting laws, clinicians can advocate for their patients by disclosing whether IPV must be reported before beginning their examination. The Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence devised this sample statement:

“I do have to let you know that under state law, I am obligated to make a police report to (name police agency with jurisdiction over the facility), if I/we are treating someone for any injury sustained by means of violence (tailor this information to the specifics of your state law). So, if you would have any concerns about that, I would encourage you to speak with one of the domestic violence advocates/counselors at (DV agency), who are able to provide confidential services and help without being required to make a police report.”55

The Compendium of State Statutes and Polices on Domestic Violence and Health Care by Futures Without Violence is an excellent reference that describes current state laws and policies regarding domestic violence and includes descriptions of the specific characteristics of each state’s mandatory reporting laws and their implications for health care providers. A copy can be downloaded from www.futureswithout-violence.org/content/features/detail/1584/.

What not to do

Clinicians should not ignore or minimize the extent of IPV, make excuses for the batterer, or blame the woman.32,56,57 They also should not inadvertently blame or criticize the woman by asking her, “What did you do to deserve this?” or “Why don’t you just leave?”57

While leaving a violent relationship is an obvious solution, many women experiencing IPV are either unwilling or unable to do so. In fact, leaving the batterer can be just as dangerous as staying. In a North Carolina study, half of all women killed by their partner had divorced or broken up with the partner immediately before the murder.4

What to do when a woman does not disclose IPV

Women who have experienced IPV often deny the violence to others out of fear. So a denial of violence, even in highly suspicious cases, can be expected. Abused patients often want help but are confused and afraid to ask for it.58,59 Providing easy and anonymous access to IPV information and resources through posters, flyers, brochures, and booklets will allow any woman—regardless of disclosure—to obtain help.36

In one IPV trial, all women in a family planning clinic who were in the intervention group were given information about IPV and how it can affect sexual and reproductive health, whether or not they disclosed. Compared with women in the control group, women who received the intervention—both those who did and did not experience IPV—were 63% more likely than those in the control group to end a relationship because they perceived it to be unhealthy or unsafe. In this case, all women—not just those who were victims—benefited from receiving information about IPV.60

PROVIDERS’ SUPPORT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, IMPROVES OUTCOMES

Patients may seek help for and find safety from IPV in stages or steps, and it may take them several months or even years to do so.61–63 In this sense, then, IPV is an issue that is not likely to be “cured” or changed in a single medical visit. In addition, a single visit may not be associated with direct health and safety outcomes. However, a patient is more likely to make changes if she has supportive and informative interaction with a caring, nonjudgmental clinician who can increase her awareness of IPV and IPV resources and promote an improved sense of self-efficacy or perceived power.40

For example, in a study in which health clinicians expressed concern about potential IPV health effects and offered support services such as counseling, 67% of women used one of those resources at least once.40 In another study, women who talked to a health care provider about their abuse were almost four times more likely to use an IPV intervention (eg, advocacy, shelter, restraining order) than women who did not talk to their provider. Those who used an IPV intervention were 2.6 times more likely to leave their abusive relationship, and those who left reported improved physical health.64

Thus, health care providers can have a positive effect by addressing this complex and difficult issue. The power and influence of a provider’s kindness, empathy, and support cannot be overestimated in their ability to improve the safety and well-being of women dealing with IPV.

Also known as “domestic violence” and “spouse abuse,” intimate partner violence (IPV) is now the term defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to include physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, and psychological or emotional abuse by a current or former spouse, common-law spouse, nonmarital dating partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend of the same or opposite sex.1 Although IPV is often hidden or kept secret by those affected, it is a highly prevalent issue, especially in women. Knowing how to broach the subject and provide appropriate support in a caring and nonjudgmental manner are the keys to helping a woman move forward in her readiness and ability to improve her situation.

See related patient information

ONE IN THREE WOMEN EXPERIENCES IPV IN HER LIFE

As clinicians, we have all seen patients who have been affected by IPV—even if we did not realize it at the time. Indeed, 36% of women in the United States (approximately 42.4 million) have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and 6% (approximately 7 million) have experienced these forms of IPV within the past 12 months.2

ASSOCIATION WITH MURDER

From 30% to 70% of women who are murdered are killed by a current or former intimate partner.3,4 Of those killed by their partner, two-thirds had previously reported physical assault, and 83% had been threatened by the man who eventually killed them.4 In another study, 44% of IPV murder victims had presented to an emergency department within 2 years of their murder.5

PHYSICAL EFFECTS NOT ALWAYS APPARENT

Although 41% of women who experience IPV suffer physical injury from their attacks, only 28% of those who are injured seek medical care.6 Because injuries are often absent or no longer apparent when an IPV victim decides to get help, it is important to be aware of the clinical signs associated with IPV:

  • Gastrointestinal disorders7
  • Depression8
  • Anxiety
  • Chronic pain syndromes9
  • Substance abuse
  • Suicidal ideation.10

In women of childbearing age, IPV is associated with unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, condom non-use,11,12 inconsistent condom use,13 and fear of talking about condom use.11,12 Coerced sexual experiences (eg, sexual intercourse that was not wanted or consented to) are common, with 28% to 42% of college women reporting at least one such experience. In more than three quarters of women who have been sexually assaulted, the first experience occurred before age 25.14,15

One-quarter of women ages 16 to 29 have experienced reproductive coercion, which includes birth control sabotage or pregnancy coercion by the active male partner.16 Among women reporting birth control sabotage, 79% had also been victims of physical or sexual IPV.16

The cost of providing health care to women experiencing IPV is 1.4 to 2.5 times higher than that of the nonabused population. Studies have shown that female victims of both physical and nonphysical (eg, emotional or verbal) IPV are more likely to use emergency, mental health, and outpatient health care services. The economic toll of IPV, including health care and costs from lost productivity and premature death, ranges from $2.3 to $8.3 billion per year.17,18

ASK FEMALE PATIENTS ABOUT IPV

In the early 1990s, various medical organizations began issuing policy statements that endorsed screening for IPV.19–22 Since 1992, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has required hospitals and clinics to provide assistance to those experiencing IPV.23 Although the United States Preventive Services Task Force initially found insufficient evidence to support regular IPV screening in health care settings,24–27 the group reversed its position in 2012 after a review of more recent studies. The group now recommends that clinicians address IPV with all women of childbearing age.28

A Cochrane review found that IPV screening increased identification of IPV survivors.29 Female participants in many studies wanted clinicians to ask routinely about violence and to provide information on community and legal resources.30,31

How should we ask about IPV?

Although various sets of screening questions and tools are available, no one instrument is considered better than the others. However, women experiencing IPV have specific preferences regarding how they want clinicians to ask and talk about the topic. In one survey, women who had experienced IPV preferred that clinicians ask about it as part of the complete medical history, as long as it did not create “an atmosphere of interrogation.”32

The style in which a clinician asks about IPV may make a difference as well. In focus groups, immigrant Latina and Asian women who had experienced IPV stated that clinicians could facilitate open communication by initiating the discussion and exhibiting compassionate and supportive behavior during the visit.33 Being able to see the same clinician at each visit also enhanced clinician-patient communication.33

In a study of IPV screening in emergency room settings, most clinicians asked about IPV in a perfunctory, direct manner—generally some variant of, “Are you a victim of domestic violence?” In this study, patient IPV disclosure occurred more often when clinicians used an open-ended approach such as, “Tell me what happened,” or when clinicians probed for possible IPV (eg, “What do you think may be causing some of this stress?”).34

In a focus group, female IPV survivors described feeling stigmatized or invalidated when clinicians were condescending, judgmental, or dismissive.35 Nonjudgmental and supportive communication decreased the women’s sense of isolation and led to positive outcomes such as increased awareness of IPV as a problem, decreased isolation, and feeling that the clinician cared.35

When addressing IPV, clinicians should explain why they are asking about it because it allows the woman to understand the context of the inquiry and to feel more comfortable about disclosing IPV. If the query is a regular part of a general screening or history-taking, for example, they should frame the question to make that point apparent. For example, “Because we know that many women in the United States experience physical, sexual or emotional violence from their romantic partners, I like to ask all of my patients whether they have been hurt or have felt threatened or afraid in a current or past relationship.”

In situations in which clinicians are concerned about IPV with a particular patient, they should explicitly share their concerns and desire to help the patient. One IPV survivor offered this advice: “Just look at the patient like she is your friend. Call her by her name. For instance, say ‘Sally, is he hurting you? Are you having problems? If you need help, I have some [phone] numbers.’ Personalize the encounter.”

It is also important to address IPV in a manner that ensures the patient’s safety, confidentiality, and dignity. When having this type of sensitive conversation, the patient should ideally be clothed and alone—without others present, particularly her partner. Professional interpreters should be available to women who do not speak English. The clinician should maintain eye contact, smile to communicate friendliness, and use a supportive tone.36

 

 

Just asking may be an intervention

Qualitative studies have suggested that just the act of asking about IPV in a nonjudgmental and compassionate manner is helpful to women experiencing IPV.35,37 Doing so not only helps women recognize the abuse, but also begins to decrease their sense of isolation and increase their awareness of helpful resources. It also gives the patient a sense that the clinician cares about her situation.35 As a result, experts have begun to recommend that health clinicians view asking about IPV not merely as a screening tool, but as a potentially therapeutic intervention in and of itself.35,37,38

HOW TO HELP

What to do when a woman discloses IPV

Female survivors, advocates, and health care clinicians who care for abused women suggest responding to a positive disclosure of IPV by providing the following:

Validation. The IPV perpetrator will often attempt to justify the violence and abuse by shifting some of the blame or responsibility for the violence onto the victim. This “brainwashing” leads to self-blame and a diminished sense of self-worth. However, clinicians can help reverse this mindset by acknowledging the woman’s disclosure and emphasizing that she did not deserve the abuse or violence. An example of such a statement is, “I am so very sorry that you went through that with your partner. You definitely did not deserve that. No one should ever be hurt by or afraid of the people who are supposed to love them.” Providing validation helps women recognize that the violence was a problem they did not deserve.38,39

Support. Women who have experienced IPV appreciate feeling supported and cared for by their health care clinician. Even if the patient is not ready to take any definitive action regarding her relationship or situation, knowing that her clinician and the health care setting are resources and sources of support is both comforting and empowering.35,40 Clinicians can communicate this support by stating, “I want you to know that whatever happens and whatever you decide, we are here for you.”

Respect for autonomy. Women experiencing IPV best understand their own situation and its various complexities and so they know best what they can do, cannot do, or need to do. As such, clinicians must respect a woman’s autonomy and preserve her ability to express her own needs and desires and make her own decisions. Prescribing a plan of action or giving commands to IPV victims could further perpetuate their sense of disempowerment and lack of control over their life.

Information. Providing referral information or hotline numbers to community domestic violence programs is helpful. However, not all women feel safe or comfortable taking printed brochures or written information with them because their abusive partner may find it. Thus, clinicians should ask if the patient can take the information safely or offer to write the numbers down without labeling them if she is afraid. The National Domestic Violence hotline is a 24-hour toll-free resource that will help women locate and contact shelters and other support services in their own community. The number, 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), is easy to memorize and thus is an easy resource to pass along quickly and safely. Other national organizations such as Futures Without Violence (formerly known as the Family Violence Prevention Fund) and the National Coalition Against Violence also provide links to local resources (Table 1).

Safety planning. Discussing the need for a safety plan will help the patient prepare for future abusive episodes. Even women who report that they are no longer in an abusive relationship should be asked about their current safety needs and concerns because they often remain in contact with abusive partners even after a relationship has ended.

When discussing safety planning, clinicians should ask the woman if she is currently safe or if she needs shelter. If she intends to return to or is still in contact with her batterer, ask if she has a plan for what to do or how to escape if the violence occurs again. Advise the patient to:

  • Hide money so that she can leave quickly
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security Number, and other important documents and keep them hidden and accessible
  • Make a spare car key
  • Have a list of hotline numbers
  • Develop a code with friends, family, and neighbors that will let them know she needs immediate help.

Studies show that discussing safety-promoting behaviors increases the number of them that are used by IPV victims.41 A detailed list that can be shared with patients is provided in the patient information page that accompanies this article.42 Examples of personalized safety plans are available from the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence at its website, www.ncdsv.org/images/NCDSV_DVSafetyPlan_updated2013.pdf.

Danger assessment. Several researchers have examined potential risk factors associated with increased risk of homicide.43 Table 2 lists some of the characteristics associated with an increased risk of homicide in IPV situations.42 From this work, a danger assessment tool and scoring system has been developed. This tool and training on how to use it are available for free at www.dangerassessment.org. Although there are currently no outcome data on the benefits or risks of using this instrument, its objective is to increase women’s awareness of their danger level and individualize their safety counseling.

Proper documentation. Victim advocates and lawyers working on behalf of IPV victims emphasize that documentation by a medical provider can help a woman with her legal case. This documentation should be clear, legible, and as detailed as possible. These details should include a patient’s own words set off by quotation marks, a description or body map illustrating associated injuries or physical signs corroborating the violence, and a description of the patient’s demeanor or signs of emotion. Clinicians should avoid legal terms such as “alleges” or “alleged perpetrator” and should either define or avoid abbreviations that may be considered ambiguous in a legal proceeding (eg, clinicians should write out the words “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence” rather than using “DV” or “IPV”).44 Most states have passed laws that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against IPV victims; insurance companies can no longer deny women coverage for seeking care related to IPV.45

 

 

A nonthreatening physical examination. Women who have experienced physical or sexual violence may feel anxious or experience added trauma during certain portions of the physical examination. Women who have been raped or otherwise sexually abused may have difficulty tolerating a pelvic examination, for example. Others who have been choked or grabbed by the neck may experience distress during palpation of the thyroid or cervical lymph nodes. The oropharyngeal examination may be challenging for women who have experienced forced oral sex or who may have had objects such as the barrel of a gun forced into their mouth. Asking women who have experienced IPV what aspects of the physical examination they may find difficult and how this could be made easier allows the patient and clinician to work together to develop strategies for or alternatives to necessary examinations or testing.

Before starting an examination, clinicians should explain what will happen and then ask the patient for her permission before moving on to the next step. Doing so creates a sense of control in an otherwise challenging and potentially traumatizing examination.

Disclosure of mandatory IPV reporting. Many states require health care providers to report any injuries caused by a weapon or criminal act to police or other official institutions.45,46 Several of these states specify that this reporting should occur during an IPV evaluation.

Mandatory reporting of IPV to police is highly controversial.47–49 Opponents of these laws argue that they do not benefit victims because they do not respect autonomy, they violate patient-clinician confidentiality, and they violate informed consent.47 Female IPV victims indicate that they would be less likely to disclose IPV and seek help if they knew it had to be reported.50–53 In a survey of California physicians, 59% stated that they might not comply with reporting laws if the patient objected.54

In states with mandatory reporting laws, clinicians can advocate for their patients by disclosing whether IPV must be reported before beginning their examination. The Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence devised this sample statement:

“I do have to let you know that under state law, I am obligated to make a police report to (name police agency with jurisdiction over the facility), if I/we are treating someone for any injury sustained by means of violence (tailor this information to the specifics of your state law). So, if you would have any concerns about that, I would encourage you to speak with one of the domestic violence advocates/counselors at (DV agency), who are able to provide confidential services and help without being required to make a police report.”55

The Compendium of State Statutes and Polices on Domestic Violence and Health Care by Futures Without Violence is an excellent reference that describes current state laws and policies regarding domestic violence and includes descriptions of the specific characteristics of each state’s mandatory reporting laws and their implications for health care providers. A copy can be downloaded from www.futureswithout-violence.org/content/features/detail/1584/.

What not to do

Clinicians should not ignore or minimize the extent of IPV, make excuses for the batterer, or blame the woman.32,56,57 They also should not inadvertently blame or criticize the woman by asking her, “What did you do to deserve this?” or “Why don’t you just leave?”57

While leaving a violent relationship is an obvious solution, many women experiencing IPV are either unwilling or unable to do so. In fact, leaving the batterer can be just as dangerous as staying. In a North Carolina study, half of all women killed by their partner had divorced or broken up with the partner immediately before the murder.4

What to do when a woman does not disclose IPV

Women who have experienced IPV often deny the violence to others out of fear. So a denial of violence, even in highly suspicious cases, can be expected. Abused patients often want help but are confused and afraid to ask for it.58,59 Providing easy and anonymous access to IPV information and resources through posters, flyers, brochures, and booklets will allow any woman—regardless of disclosure—to obtain help.36

In one IPV trial, all women in a family planning clinic who were in the intervention group were given information about IPV and how it can affect sexual and reproductive health, whether or not they disclosed. Compared with women in the control group, women who received the intervention—both those who did and did not experience IPV—were 63% more likely than those in the control group to end a relationship because they perceived it to be unhealthy or unsafe. In this case, all women—not just those who were victims—benefited from receiving information about IPV.60

PROVIDERS’ SUPPORT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, IMPROVES OUTCOMES

Patients may seek help for and find safety from IPV in stages or steps, and it may take them several months or even years to do so.61–63 In this sense, then, IPV is an issue that is not likely to be “cured” or changed in a single medical visit. In addition, a single visit may not be associated with direct health and safety outcomes. However, a patient is more likely to make changes if she has supportive and informative interaction with a caring, nonjudgmental clinician who can increase her awareness of IPV and IPV resources and promote an improved sense of self-efficacy or perceived power.40

For example, in a study in which health clinicians expressed concern about potential IPV health effects and offered support services such as counseling, 67% of women used one of those resources at least once.40 In another study, women who talked to a health care provider about their abuse were almost four times more likely to use an IPV intervention (eg, advocacy, shelter, restraining order) than women who did not talk to their provider. Those who used an IPV intervention were 2.6 times more likely to leave their abusive relationship, and those who left reported improved physical health.64

Thus, health care providers can have a positive effect by addressing this complex and difficult issue. The power and influence of a provider’s kindness, empathy, and support cannot be overestimated in their ability to improve the safety and well-being of women dealing with IPV.

References
  1. Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA; 1999. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_surveillance/intimate%20partner%20violence.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  2. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al; Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  3. Kellermann AL, Mercy JA. Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. J Trauma 1992; 33:15.
  4. Moracco KE, Runywan CW, Butts JD. Femicide in North Carolina, 1991–1993: a statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Studies 1998; 4:422446.
  5. Wadman MC, Muelleman RL. Domestic violence homicides: ED use before victimization. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17:689691.
  6. Catalano SM; United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. Intimate partner violence in the United States: 2007. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1000. Accessed February 19, 2014.
  7. Drossman DA, Talley NJ, Leserman J, Olden KW, Barreiro MA. Sexual and physical abuse and gastrointestinal illness. Review and recommendations. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:782794.
  8. Scholle SH, Rost KM, Golding JM. Physical abuse among depressed women. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:607613.
  9. Walling MK, O’Hara MW, Reiter RC, Milburn AK, Lilly G, Vincent SD. Abuse history and chronic pain in women: II. A multivariate analysis of abuse and psychological morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84:200206.
  10. McCauley J, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Derogatis LR, Bass EB. Relation of low-severity violence to women’s health. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:687691.
  11. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. The effects of an abusive primary partner on the condom use and sexual negotiation practices of African-American women. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:10161018.
  12. Sales JM, Salazar LF, Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ, Rose E, Crosby RA. The mediating role of partner communication skills on HIV/STD-associated risk behaviors in young African American females with a history of sexual violence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162:432438.
  13. Davila YR, Brackley MH. Mexican and Mexican American women in a battered women’s shelter: barriers to condom negotiation for HIV/AIDS prevention. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1999; 20:333355.
  14. Tjaden P, Thoennes N; National Institute of Justice; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC; 1998. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  15. Masho SW, Odor RK, Adera T. Sexual assault in Virginia: a population-based study. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:157166.
  16. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception 2010; 81:316322.
  17. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Serv Res 2009; 44:10521067.
  18. Rivara FP, Anderson ML, Fishman P, et al. Healthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med 2007; 32:8996.
  19. American Nurses Association. Position statement on physical violence against women. Washington, DC; 1991.
  20. Physicians and domestic violence. Ethical considerations. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA 1992; 267:31903193.
  21. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Screening tools: domestic violence. http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Violence_Against_Women/Screening_Tools__Domestic_Violence. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  22. Lee D, James L, Sawires P; The Family Violence Prevention Fund. Preventing domestic violence: clinical guidelines on routine screening. San Francisco, CA; 1999. http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/screpol.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  23. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation manual for hospitals. Chicago, IL; 1992.
  24. US Department of Health and Human Services. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Washington, DC; 1996.
  25. Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ 2002; 325:314.
  26. Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:387396.
  27. Chamberlain L. The USPSTF recommendation on intimate partner violence: what we can learn from it and what we can do about it. Fam Viol Prev Health Pract 2005; 1:124.
  28. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158:478486.
  29. Taft A, O’Doherty L, Hegarty K, Ramsay J, Davidson L, Feder G. Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4:CD007007.
  30. McNutt LA, Carlson BE, Gagen D, Winterbauer N. Reproductive violence screening in primary care: perspectives and experiences of patients and battered women. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1999; 54:8590.
  31. Friedman LS, Samet JH, Roberts MS, Hudlin M, Hans P. Inquiry about victimization experiences. A survey of patient p and physician practices. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152:11861190.
  32. Hamberger LK, Ambuel B, Marbella A, Donze J. Physician interaction with battered women: the women’s perspective. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7:575582.
  33. Rodriguez MA, Bauer HM, Flores-Ortiz Y, Szkupinski-Quiroga S. Factors affecting patient-physician communication for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. J Fam Pract 1998; 47:309311.
  34. Rhodes KV, Frankel RM, Levinthal N, Prenoveau E, Bailey J, Levinson W. “You’re not a victim of domestic violence, are you?” Provider patient communication about domestic violence”. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:620627.
  35. Chang JC, Decker M, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. What happens when health care providers ask about intimate partner violence? A description of consequences from the perspectives of female survivors. J Am Med Womens Assoc 2003; 58:7681.
  36. Chang JC, Decker MR, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. Asking about intimate partner violence: advice from female survivors to health care providers. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 59:141147.
  37. Hathaway JE, Willis G, Zimmer B. Listening to survivors’ voices: addressing partner abuse in the health care setting. Violence Against Women 2002; 8:687716.
  38. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Bronstone A, Moe J, Abercrombie P. A qualitative analysis of how physicians with expertise in domestic violence approach the identification of victims. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:578584.
  39. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Milliken N, Berlin M, Bronstone A, Moe J. Interventions that help victims of domestic violence. A qualitative analysis of physicians’ experiences. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:889895.
  40. McCaw B, Bauer HM, Berman WH, Mooney L, Holmberg M, Hunkeler E. Women referred for on-site domestic violence services in a managed care organization. Women Health 2002; 35:2340.
  41. McFarlane J, Malecha A, Gist J, et al. An intervention to increase safety behaviors of abused women: results of a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res 2002; 51:347354.
  42. Chang JC. Domestic violence. In:Bieber EJ, Sanfilippo JS, Horowitz IR, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:7989.
  43. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:10891097.
  44. Isaac NE, Enos V; National Institute of Justice. Documenting domestic violence: how health care providers can help victims. Research in Brief, 2001. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188564.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  45. Durborow N, Lizdas KC, O’Flaherty A, Marjavi A; Futures Without Violence. Compendium of state and US terrritory statutes and policies on domestic violence and health care, 2010. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/content/features/detail/1584/. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  46. Hyman A, Schillinger D, Lo B. Laws mandating reporting of domestic violence. Do they promote patient well-being? JAMA 1995; 273:17811787.
  47. Hyman A, Chez RA. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers: a misguided approach. Womens Health Issues 1995; 5:208213.
  48. Knight MA. Ethical debate: should doctors be more proactive as advocates for victims of violence? The police surgeon’s view: medical paternalism is unacceptable. BMJ 1995; 311:16201621.
  49. Hyman A; Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by healthcare providers: a policy paper. San Francisco, CA; 1997. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/HealthCare/mandatory_policypaper.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  50. Rodriguez MA, Craig AM, Mooney DR, Bauer HM. Patient attitudes about mandatory reporting of domestic violence. Implications for health care professionals. West J Med 1998; 169:337341.
  51. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  52. Sachs CJ, Koziol-McLain J, Glass N, Webster D, Campbell J. A population-based survey assessing support for mandatory domestic violence reporting by health care personnel. Women Health 2002; 35:121133.
  53. Sullivan CM, Hagen LA. Survivors’ opinions about mandatory reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical professionals. Affilia 2005; 20:116.
  54. Rodriguez MA, McLoughlin E, Bauer HM, Paredes V, Grumbach K. Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence to police: views of physicians in California. Am J Public Health 1999; 89:575578.
  55. Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence to law enforcement by health care providers: a guide for advocates working to respond to or amend reporting laws related to domestic violence. www.healthcaresaboutipv.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/3/files/2012/09/Mandatory_Reporting_of_DV_to_Law-Enforcement_by_HCP.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  56. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  57. Gerbert B, Johnston K, Caspers N, Bleecker T, Woods A, Rosenbaum A. Experiences of battered women in health care settings: a qualitative study. Women Health 1996; 24:117.
  58. Chang JC, Cluss PA, Ranieri L, et al. Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:2130.
  59. Rodriguez MA, Quiroga SS, Bauer HM. Breaking the silence. Battered women’s perspectives on medical care. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5:153158.
  60. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception 2011; 83:274280.
  61. Landenburger K. A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive relationship. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1989; 10:209227.
  62. Cluss PA, Chang JC, Hawker L, et al. The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence: support for a psychosocial readiness model. Womens Health Issues 2006; 16:262274.
  63. Gerbert B, Abercrombie P, Caspers N, Love C, Bronstone A. How health care providers help battered women: the survivor’s perspective. Women Health 1999; 29:115135.
  64. McCloskey LA, Lichter E, Williams C, Gerber M, Wittenberg E, Ganz M. Assessing intimate partner violence in health care settings leads to women’s receipt of interventions and improved health. Public Health Rep 2006; 121:435444.
References
  1. Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA; 1999. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_surveillance/intimate%20partner%20violence.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  2. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al; Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  3. Kellermann AL, Mercy JA. Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. J Trauma 1992; 33:15.
  4. Moracco KE, Runywan CW, Butts JD. Femicide in North Carolina, 1991–1993: a statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Studies 1998; 4:422446.
  5. Wadman MC, Muelleman RL. Domestic violence homicides: ED use before victimization. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17:689691.
  6. Catalano SM; United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. Intimate partner violence in the United States: 2007. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1000. Accessed February 19, 2014.
  7. Drossman DA, Talley NJ, Leserman J, Olden KW, Barreiro MA. Sexual and physical abuse and gastrointestinal illness. Review and recommendations. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:782794.
  8. Scholle SH, Rost KM, Golding JM. Physical abuse among depressed women. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:607613.
  9. Walling MK, O’Hara MW, Reiter RC, Milburn AK, Lilly G, Vincent SD. Abuse history and chronic pain in women: II. A multivariate analysis of abuse and psychological morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84:200206.
  10. McCauley J, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Derogatis LR, Bass EB. Relation of low-severity violence to women’s health. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13:687691.
  11. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. The effects of an abusive primary partner on the condom use and sexual negotiation practices of African-American women. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:10161018.
  12. Sales JM, Salazar LF, Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ, Rose E, Crosby RA. The mediating role of partner communication skills on HIV/STD-associated risk behaviors in young African American females with a history of sexual violence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008; 162:432438.
  13. Davila YR, Brackley MH. Mexican and Mexican American women in a battered women’s shelter: barriers to condom negotiation for HIV/AIDS prevention. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1999; 20:333355.
  14. Tjaden P, Thoennes N; National Institute of Justice; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC; 1998. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  15. Masho SW, Odor RK, Adera T. Sexual assault in Virginia: a population-based study. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:157166.
  16. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception 2010; 81:316322.
  17. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Serv Res 2009; 44:10521067.
  18. Rivara FP, Anderson ML, Fishman P, et al. Healthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med 2007; 32:8996.
  19. American Nurses Association. Position statement on physical violence against women. Washington, DC; 1991.
  20. Physicians and domestic violence. Ethical considerations. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA 1992; 267:31903193.
  21. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Screening tools: domestic violence. http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Violence_Against_Women/Screening_Tools__Domestic_Violence. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  22. Lee D, James L, Sawires P; The Family Violence Prevention Fund. Preventing domestic violence: clinical guidelines on routine screening. San Francisco, CA; 1999. http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/screpol.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  23. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation manual for hospitals. Chicago, IL; 1992.
  24. US Department of Health and Human Services. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Washington, DC; 1996.
  25. Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ 2002; 325:314.
  26. Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:387396.
  27. Chamberlain L. The USPSTF recommendation on intimate partner violence: what we can learn from it and what we can do about it. Fam Viol Prev Health Pract 2005; 1:124.
  28. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158:478486.
  29. Taft A, O’Doherty L, Hegarty K, Ramsay J, Davidson L, Feder G. Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4:CD007007.
  30. McNutt LA, Carlson BE, Gagen D, Winterbauer N. Reproductive violence screening in primary care: perspectives and experiences of patients and battered women. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1999; 54:8590.
  31. Friedman LS, Samet JH, Roberts MS, Hudlin M, Hans P. Inquiry about victimization experiences. A survey of patient p and physician practices. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152:11861190.
  32. Hamberger LK, Ambuel B, Marbella A, Donze J. Physician interaction with battered women: the women’s perspective. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7:575582.
  33. Rodriguez MA, Bauer HM, Flores-Ortiz Y, Szkupinski-Quiroga S. Factors affecting patient-physician communication for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. J Fam Pract 1998; 47:309311.
  34. Rhodes KV, Frankel RM, Levinthal N, Prenoveau E, Bailey J, Levinson W. “You’re not a victim of domestic violence, are you?” Provider patient communication about domestic violence”. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:620627.
  35. Chang JC, Decker M, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. What happens when health care providers ask about intimate partner violence? A description of consequences from the perspectives of female survivors. J Am Med Womens Assoc 2003; 58:7681.
  36. Chang JC, Decker MR, Moracco KE, Martin SL, Petersen R, Frasier PY. Asking about intimate partner violence: advice from female survivors to health care providers. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 59:141147.
  37. Hathaway JE, Willis G, Zimmer B. Listening to survivors’ voices: addressing partner abuse in the health care setting. Violence Against Women 2002; 8:687716.
  38. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Bronstone A, Moe J, Abercrombie P. A qualitative analysis of how physicians with expertise in domestic violence approach the identification of victims. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:578584.
  39. Gerbert B, Caspers N, Milliken N, Berlin M, Bronstone A, Moe J. Interventions that help victims of domestic violence. A qualitative analysis of physicians’ experiences. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:889895.
  40. McCaw B, Bauer HM, Berman WH, Mooney L, Holmberg M, Hunkeler E. Women referred for on-site domestic violence services in a managed care organization. Women Health 2002; 35:2340.
  41. McFarlane J, Malecha A, Gist J, et al. An intervention to increase safety behaviors of abused women: results of a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res 2002; 51:347354.
  42. Chang JC. Domestic violence. In:Bieber EJ, Sanfilippo JS, Horowitz IR, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:7989.
  43. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:10891097.
  44. Isaac NE, Enos V; National Institute of Justice. Documenting domestic violence: how health care providers can help victims. Research in Brief, 2001. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188564.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  45. Durborow N, Lizdas KC, O’Flaherty A, Marjavi A; Futures Without Violence. Compendium of state and US terrritory statutes and policies on domestic violence and health care, 2010. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/content/features/detail/1584/. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  46. Hyman A, Schillinger D, Lo B. Laws mandating reporting of domestic violence. Do they promote patient well-being? JAMA 1995; 273:17811787.
  47. Hyman A, Chez RA. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by health care providers: a misguided approach. Womens Health Issues 1995; 5:208213.
  48. Knight MA. Ethical debate: should doctors be more proactive as advocates for victims of violence? The police surgeon’s view: medical paternalism is unacceptable. BMJ 1995; 311:16201621.
  49. Hyman A; Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence by healthcare providers: a policy paper. San Francisco, CA; 1997. www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/HealthCare/mandatory_policypaper.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  50. Rodriguez MA, Craig AM, Mooney DR, Bauer HM. Patient attitudes about mandatory reporting of domestic violence. Implications for health care professionals. West J Med 1998; 169:337341.
  51. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  52. Sachs CJ, Koziol-McLain J, Glass N, Webster D, Campbell J. A population-based survey assessing support for mandatory domestic violence reporting by health care personnel. Women Health 2002; 35:121133.
  53. Sullivan CM, Hagen LA. Survivors’ opinions about mandatory reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical professionals. Affilia 2005; 20:116.
  54. Rodriguez MA, McLoughlin E, Bauer HM, Paredes V, Grumbach K. Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence to police: views of physicians in California. Am J Public Health 1999; 89:575578.
  55. Futures Without Violence. Mandatory reporting of domestic violence to law enforcement by health care providers: a guide for advocates working to respond to or amend reporting laws related to domestic violence. www.healthcaresaboutipv.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/3/files/2012/09/Mandatory_Reporting_of_DV_to_Law-Enforcement_by_HCP.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2014.
  56. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J 1997; 90:10751080.
  57. Gerbert B, Johnston K, Caspers N, Bleecker T, Woods A, Rosenbaum A. Experiences of battered women in health care settings: a qualitative study. Women Health 1996; 24:117.
  58. Chang JC, Cluss PA, Ranieri L, et al. Health care interventions for intimate partner violence: what women want. Womens Health Issues 2005; 15:2130.
  59. Rodriguez MA, Quiroga SS, Bauer HM. Breaking the silence. Battered women’s perspectives on medical care. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5:153158.
  60. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception 2011; 83:274280.
  61. Landenburger K. A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive relationship. Issues Ment Health Nurs 1989; 10:209227.
  62. Cluss PA, Chang JC, Hawker L, et al. The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence: support for a psychosocial readiness model. Womens Health Issues 2006; 16:262274.
  63. Gerbert B, Abercrombie P, Caspers N, Love C, Bronstone A. How health care providers help battered women: the survivor’s perspective. Women Health 1999; 29:115135.
  64. McCloskey LA, Lichter E, Williams C, Gerber M, Wittenberg E, Ganz M. Assessing intimate partner violence in health care settings leads to women’s receipt of interventions and improved health. Public Health Rep 2006; 121:435444.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
439-446
Page Number
439-446
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Intimate partner violence: How you can help female survivors
Display Headline
Intimate partner violence: How you can help female survivors
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Many victims of IPV will not present with injuries but may have medical or mental health issues related to their IPV experiences.
  • Addressing IPV with female patients not only results in increased identification of survivors but is also associated with cognitive and emotional benefits.
  • IPV information and resources should be provided to all women, regardless of IPV disclosure.
  • Clinicians should respond to a patient’s IPV disclosure with validation, support, respect, and information.
  • Clinicians must respect patients’ autonomy, as they are the ones who best understand their situation and know what they need. In some cases, leaving an abusive relationship can be more dangerous than staying.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Planning ahead: How to stay safe

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/13/2017 - 11:17
Display Headline
Planning ahead: How to stay safe

If you are being abused, making a safety plan now may help you when you have to act quickly in the future. The following ideas are ways that other women have planned for their safety. Some of these ideas may work for you. You may come up with additional ideas for yourself. You know your own situation better than anyone else, so plan what will work best for you.

  • Hide money or put it somewhere safe so you can leave quickly.
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security numbers, and other important documents to keep in safe locations away from home such as at work, the homes of trusted family members or friends, or hidden in convenient locations.
  • Hide a spare car key or bus or subway pass that you can grab quickly.
  • Keep a list of hotline numbers, or memorize the 1-800-799-SAFE National Domestic Violence Hotline number.
  • Develop a code with friends, family, or neighbors to let them know when you need help in an emergency. If you have children, teach them a signal (like a code word) that means they should call the police or go for help. You may want to have a special code for neighbors (like putting on a particular light or opening a certain window) that means you want them to call the police.
  • Plan your exit. Know which doors, windows, stairwells, elevators, or fire escapes you can use if you have to leave quickly. Practice using them so that they feel familiar to you.
  • Know how to reach the police and your local women’s shelter.
  • Every day, think about where you can go immediately if you have to leave. Is a neighbor home today? A relative? A friend?
  • Remove weapons from your home if you can.
  • Something to think about: When you cannot get away and your partner becomes violent, which room is the safest for you to get to? Is there a room that has a phone and a lock on the door? Can you stay out of rooms with easy weapons, such as the kitchen?
  • Try not to leave without your children. But if you have to leave your children with the abuser, call the police immediately after you escape.

Adapted from Chang JC. Domestic violence. In: Bieber EJ, et al, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:79–89.

 

This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.

This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.

For patient information on hundreds of health topics, see the Center for Consumer Health Information web site, www.clevelandclinic.org/health

Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
447
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

If you are being abused, making a safety plan now may help you when you have to act quickly in the future. The following ideas are ways that other women have planned for their safety. Some of these ideas may work for you. You may come up with additional ideas for yourself. You know your own situation better than anyone else, so plan what will work best for you.

  • Hide money or put it somewhere safe so you can leave quickly.
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security numbers, and other important documents to keep in safe locations away from home such as at work, the homes of trusted family members or friends, or hidden in convenient locations.
  • Hide a spare car key or bus or subway pass that you can grab quickly.
  • Keep a list of hotline numbers, or memorize the 1-800-799-SAFE National Domestic Violence Hotline number.
  • Develop a code with friends, family, or neighbors to let them know when you need help in an emergency. If you have children, teach them a signal (like a code word) that means they should call the police or go for help. You may want to have a special code for neighbors (like putting on a particular light or opening a certain window) that means you want them to call the police.
  • Plan your exit. Know which doors, windows, stairwells, elevators, or fire escapes you can use if you have to leave quickly. Practice using them so that they feel familiar to you.
  • Know how to reach the police and your local women’s shelter.
  • Every day, think about where you can go immediately if you have to leave. Is a neighbor home today? A relative? A friend?
  • Remove weapons from your home if you can.
  • Something to think about: When you cannot get away and your partner becomes violent, which room is the safest for you to get to? Is there a room that has a phone and a lock on the door? Can you stay out of rooms with easy weapons, such as the kitchen?
  • Try not to leave without your children. But if you have to leave your children with the abuser, call the police immediately after you escape.

Adapted from Chang JC. Domestic violence. In: Bieber EJ, et al, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:79–89.

 

This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.

This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.

For patient information on hundreds of health topics, see the Center for Consumer Health Information web site, www.clevelandclinic.org/health

If you are being abused, making a safety plan now may help you when you have to act quickly in the future. The following ideas are ways that other women have planned for their safety. Some of these ideas may work for you. You may come up with additional ideas for yourself. You know your own situation better than anyone else, so plan what will work best for you.

  • Hide money or put it somewhere safe so you can leave quickly.
  • Make copies of birth certificates, immunization records, Social Security numbers, and other important documents to keep in safe locations away from home such as at work, the homes of trusted family members or friends, or hidden in convenient locations.
  • Hide a spare car key or bus or subway pass that you can grab quickly.
  • Keep a list of hotline numbers, or memorize the 1-800-799-SAFE National Domestic Violence Hotline number.
  • Develop a code with friends, family, or neighbors to let them know when you need help in an emergency. If you have children, teach them a signal (like a code word) that means they should call the police or go for help. You may want to have a special code for neighbors (like putting on a particular light or opening a certain window) that means you want them to call the police.
  • Plan your exit. Know which doors, windows, stairwells, elevators, or fire escapes you can use if you have to leave quickly. Practice using them so that they feel familiar to you.
  • Know how to reach the police and your local women’s shelter.
  • Every day, think about where you can go immediately if you have to leave. Is a neighbor home today? A relative? A friend?
  • Remove weapons from your home if you can.
  • Something to think about: When you cannot get away and your partner becomes violent, which room is the safest for you to get to? Is there a room that has a phone and a lock on the door? Can you stay out of rooms with easy weapons, such as the kitchen?
  • Try not to leave without your children. But if you have to leave your children with the abuser, call the police immediately after you escape.

Adapted from Chang JC. Domestic violence. In: Bieber EJ, et al, editors. Clinical Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA; Elsevier, Inc; 2006:79–89.

 

This information is provided by your physician and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. It is not designed to replace a physician’s medical assessment and judgment.

This page may be reproduced noncommercially to share with patients. Any other reproduction is subject to Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine approval. Bulk color reprints available by calling 216-444-2661.

For patient information on hundreds of health topics, see the Center for Consumer Health Information web site, www.clevelandclinic.org/health

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
447
Page Number
447
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Planning ahead: How to stay safe
Display Headline
Planning ahead: How to stay safe
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Promoting higher blood pressure targets for frail older adults: A consensus guideline from Canada

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 13:55
Display Headline
Promoting higher blood pressure targets for frail older adults: A consensus guideline from Canada

Frail older adults deserve guidelines that take frailty into account while assessing the potential benefit and risks of treatment.

Specifically, our group—the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service (ADS) and the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program—recommends that physicians strive to achieve more liberal treatment targets for elderly frail patients who have high blood pressure,1 as evidence does not support an aggressive approach in the frail elderly and the potential exists for harm.

This article reviews the evidence and reasoning that were used to develop and promote a guideline for drug treatment of hypertension in frail older adults. Our recommendations differ from other guidelines in that they focus as much on stopping or decreasing therapy as on starting or increasing it.

FRAILTY INCREASES THE RISK OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

The word frail, applied to older adults, describes those who have complex medical illnesses severe enough to compromise their ability to live independently.2 Many have multiple coexisting medical problems for which they take numerous drugs, in addition to dementia, impaired mobility, compromised functional ability, or a history of falling.

Frailty denotes vulnerability; it increases the risk of adverse effects from medical and surgical procedures,3 complicates drug therapy,4 prolongs hospital length of stay,5 leads to functional and cognitive decline,6 increases the risk of institutionalization,7 and reduces life expectancy8—all of which affect the benefit and harm of medical treatments.

Guidelines for treating hypertension9–11 now acknowledge that little evidence exists to support starting treatment for systolic blood pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg or aiming for a target of less than 140 mm Hg for “very old” adults, commonly defined as over the age of 80. New guidelines loosen the treatment targets for the very old, but they do not specify targets for the frail and do not describe how to recognize or measure frailty.

RECOGNIZING AND MEASURING FRAILTY

A number of tools are available to recognize and measure frailty.12

The Fried frailty assessment13 has five items:

  • Unintentional weight loss
  • Self-reported exhaustion
  • Weakness in grip
  • Slow walking speed
  • Low physical activity and energy expenditure.

People are deemed frail if they have three or more of these five. However, experts disagree about whether this system is too sensitive14 or not sensitive enough.15,16

The FRAIL questionnaire17 also has five items:

  • Fatigue
  • Resistance (inability to climb stairs)
  • Ambulation (inability to walk 1 city block)
  • Illness (more than 5 major illnesses)
  • Weight loss.

People are deemed frail if they have at least three of these five items, and “prefrail” if they have two.

These and other tools are limited by being dichotomous: they classify people as being either frail or not frail18–20 but do not define the spectrum of frailty.

Other frailty assessments such as the Frailty Index21 identify frailty based on the number of accumulated health deficits but take a long time to complete, making them difficult to use in busy clinical settings.22–24

The Clinical Frailty Scale7 is a validated scale that categorizes frailty based on physical and functional indicators of health, such as cognition, function, and mobility, with scores that range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill).7,12

The Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT) uses scaling compatible with the Clinical Frailty Scale but has been developed for use as a practical and interpretable frailty screening tool for nonexperts (Table 1). The FACT assesses cognition, mobility, function, and the social situation, using a combination of caregiver report and objective measures. To assess cognition, a health care professional uses items from the Mini-Cog25 (ie, the ability to draw an analog clock face and then recall three unrelated items following the clock-drawing test) and the memory axis of the Brief Cognitive Rating Scale26 (ie, the ability to recall current events, the current US president, and the names of children or spouse). Mobility, function, and social circumstance scores are assigned according to the caregiver report of the patient’s baseline status.

The FACT can be completed in busy clinical settings. Once a caregiver is identified, it takes about 5 minutes to complete.

Our guideline27–31 is intended for those with a score of 7 or more on the Clinical Frailty Scale or FACT,7,12 a score we chose because it describes people who are severely frail with shortened life expectancy.8 At this level, people need help with all instrumental activities of daily living (eg, handling finances, medication management, household chores, and shopping) as well as with basic activities of daily living such as bathing or dressing.

 

 

REVIEWING THE LIMITED EVIDENCE

We found no studies that addressed the risks and benefits of treating hypertension in frail older adults; therefore, we concentrated on studies that enrolled individuals who were chronologically old but not frail. We reviewed prominent guidelines,9–11,32,33 the evidence base for these guidelines,34–44 and Cochrane reviews.45,46 A detailed description of the evidence used to build our recommendation can be found online.31

When we deliberated on treatment targets, we reviewed evidence from two types of randomized controlled trials47:

Drug treatment trials randomize patients to different treatments, such as placebo versus a drug or one drug compared with another drug. Patients in different treatment groups may achieve different blood pressures and clinical outcomes, and this information is then used to define optimal targets. However, it may be difficult to determine if the benefit came from lowering blood pressure or from some other effect of the drug, which can be independent of blood pressure lowering.

Treat-to-target trials randomize patients to different blood pressure goals, but the groups are treated with the same or similar drugs. Therefore, any identified benefit can be attributed to the differences in blood pressure rather than the medications used. Compared with a drug treatment trial, this type of trial provides stronger evidence about optimal targets.

We also considered the characteristics of frailty, the dilemma of polypharmacy, and the relevance of the available scientific evidence to those who are frail.

Drug treatment trials

A Cochrane review45 of 15 studies with approximately 24,000 elderly participants found that treating hypertension decreased the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as fatal and nonfatal stroke in the “elderly” (defined as age ≥ 60) and “very elderly” (age ≥ 80). However, in the very elderly, all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significantly different with treatment compared with placebo. The mean duration of treatment was 4.5 years in the elderly and 2.2 years in the very elderly (Table 2). Of importance, all the trials enrolled only those individuals whose systolic blood pressure was at least 160 mm Hg at baseline.

None of the studies were treat-to-target trials—patients were assigned either active medication or placebo. Thus, these trials provide evidence of benefit for treating hypertension in the elderly and very elderly but do not identify the optimal target. All of the drug treatment trials showed benefit, but none achieved a systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg with active treatment (Table 3). Therefore, these studies do not support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly.

Treat-to-target trials: JATOS and VALISH

The Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (JATOS)42 and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension (VALISH) study43 each enrolled more than 3,000 people age 65 or older (mean age approximately 75). Patients were randomized to either a strict systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg or a higher (more permissive) target of 140 to 160 mm Hg in JATOS and 140 to 149 mm Hg in VALISH.

In both trials, the group with strict targets achieved a systolic pressure of approximately 136 mm Hg, while the group with higher blood pressure targets achieved a systolic pressure of 146 mm Hg in JATOS and 142 mm Hg in VALISH. Despite these differences, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome.

Thus, treat-to-target studies also fail to support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, although it is important to recognize the limitations of the studies. Approximately 15% of the participants had cardiovascular disease, so the applicability of the findings to patients with target-organ damage is uncertain. In addition, there were fewer efficacy outcome events than expected, which suggests that the studies were underpowered.

When to start drug treatment

In each of the drug treatment and treat-to-target trials, the inclusion criterion for study entry was a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg, with a mean blood pressure at entry into the drug treatment trials of 182/95 mm Hg.46 Thus, data support starting treatment if the systolic blood pressure is above 160 mm Hg, but not lower.

Notably, in all but one study,46 at least two-thirds of the participants took no more than two antihypertensive medications. Since adverse events become more common as the number of medications increases, the benefit of adding a third drug to lower blood pressure is uncertain.

Evidence in the ‘very elderly’: HYVET

With the exception of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET),44 the mean age of elderly patients in the reported studies was between 67 and 76.

HYVET patients were age 80 and older (mean age 84) and were randomized to receive either indapamide (with or without perindopril) or placebo. The trial was stopped early at 2 years because the mortality rate was lower in the treatment group (10.1%) than in the placebo group (12.3%) (number needed to treat 46, 95% confidence interval 24–637, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke.

Notably, trials that are stopped early may overestimate treatment benefit.48

Evidence in frail older adults

While the above studies provide some information about managing hypertension in the elderly, the participants were generally healthy. HYVET44 specifically excluded those with a standing systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and enrolled few patients with orthostasis (7.9% in the placebo group and 8.8% in the treatment group), a condition commonly associated with frailty. As such, these studies may be less relevant to the frail elderly, who are at higher risk of adverse drug events and have competing risks for morbidity and mortality.

Observational studies, in fact, raise questions about whether tight blood pressure control improves clinical outcomes for the very elderly. In the Leiden 85-plus study, lower systolic blood pressure was associated with lower cognitive scores, worse functional ability,49,50 and a higher mortality rate51 compared with higher systolic pressure, although it is uncertain whether these outcomes were indicative of underlying disease that could result in lower blood pressure or an effect of blood pressure-lowering.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey52 found an association between blood pressure and mortality rate that varied by walking speed. For slower walkers (based on the 6-minute walk test), higher systolic pressures were not associated with a higher risk of death, suggesting that when older adults are frail (as indicated by their slow walking speed) they are less likely to benefit from aggressive treatment of hypertension.

People at high risk because of stroke

Because the evidence is limited, it is even more difficult to judge whether lowering blood pressure below 140 mm Hg is beneficial for frail patients who have a history of stroke, compared with the possibility that medications will cause adverse effects such as weakness, orthostasis, and falls. When reviewing the evidence to answer this question, we especially looked at outcomes that affect quality of life, such as nonfatal stroke leading to disability. In contrast, because the frail elderly have competing causes of mortality, we could not assume that a mortality benefit shown in nonfrail populations could be applied to frail populations.

The PROGRESS trial (Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study)53 was in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack and a mean age of 64, who were treated with either perindopril (with or without indapamide) or placebo.

At almost 4 years, the rate of disabling stroke was 2.7% in the treatment group and 4.3% in the placebo group, a relative risk reduction of 38% and an absolute risk reduction of 1.64% (number needed to treat 61, 95% confidence interval 39–139). The relative risk reduction for all strokes (fatal and nonfatal) was similar across a range of baseline systolic pressures, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the prespecified subgroup that had hypertension at baseline (mean blood pressure 159/94 mm Hg) than in the normotensive subgroup (mean blood pressure 136/79 mm Hg), suggesting that treatment is most beneficial for those with higher systolic blood pressures. Also, the benefit was only demonstrated in the subgroup that received two antihypertensive medications; those who received perindopril alone showed no benefit.

This study involved relatively young patients in relatively good health except for their strokes. The extent to which the results can be extrapolated to older, frail adults is uncertain because of the time needed to achieve benefit and because of the added vulnerability of frailty, which could make treatment with two antihypertensive medications riskier.

PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes),54 another study in patients with previous stroke (mean age 66) showed no benefit over 2.5 years in the primary outcome of stroke using telmesartan 80 mg daily compared with placebo. This result is concordant with that of PROGRESS,53 in which patients who took only one medication did not show a significant decrease in the rate of stroke.

A possible reason for the lack of benefit from monotherapy was that the differences in blood pressure between the placebo group and the treatment group on monotherapy were small in both studies (3.8/2.0 mm Hg in PRoFESS, 5/3 mm Hg in PROGRESS). In contrast, patients on dual therapy in PROGRESS decreased their blood pressure by 12/5 mm Hg compared with placebo.

 

 

CURRENT HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES

Current guidelines make reference to the elderly, but we found none that made specific recommendations for the frail elderly.

JNC 8

In December 2013, members of the Eighth Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 8) released new recommendations.32 One significant revision was to support higher blood pressure targets for older adults (age 60 and older). Whereas JNC 7 stated that lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular complications,33 JNC 8 now acknowledges that there is no strong evidence to support blood pressure targets below 150/90 mm Hg for hypertensive persons without kidney disease or diabetes age 60 and older. Thus, in the general population age 60 and older, JNC 8 recommends starting antihypertensive treatment when blood pressure is 150/90 mm Hg or higher, and treating to a goal blood pressure of less than 150/90 mm Hg. JNC 8 makes no recommendation about how to adjust blood pressure targets for frailty or how to measure blood pressure.

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association

In 2011, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association published a consensus document on the management of hypertension in the elderly.9

They acknowledged that the generally recommended blood pressure goal of lower than 140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated elderly patients is based on expert opinion rather than on data from randomized controlled trials, but nevertheless recommended a target systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg for older adults, except for octogenarians.

For those over age 80, systolic levels of 140 to 145 mm Hg can be acceptable if tolerated and if the patient does not experience orthostasis when standing. Systolic pressure lower than 130 mm Hg and diastolic pressures lower than 65 mm Hg should be avoided in this age group.

The document acknowledges that systolic pressure may have to remain above 150 mm Hg if there is no response to four “well-selected drugs” or if there are unacceptable side effects. In these cases, the lowest “safely achieved” systolic blood pressure should be the goal.

Canadian Hypertension Education Program

The 2014 Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) report makes several recommendations for the “very elderly,” a group they define as over the age of 80. The CHEP website and resources include the following recommendations10:

  • For the very elderly without diabetes or target-organ damage, drug therapy should be initiated when systolic blood pressure is higher than 160 mm Hg to reach a systolic blood pressure target lower than 150 mm Hg. This is a grade C level recommendation, indicating that it is based on low-quality trials, unvalidated surrogate outcomes, or results from nonrandomized observational studies.
  • For the very elderly with macrovascular target-organ damage, antihypertensive therapy should be considered if systolic blood pressure readings average 140 mm Hg or higher (grade D for 140 to 160 mm Hg; grade A for higher than 160 mm Hg), although caution should be exercised in elderly patients who are frail. (Grade D recommendations are the weakest, as they are based on low-powered, imprecise studies or expert opinion, whereas grade A recommendations are based on the strongest evidence from high-quality randomized clinical trials.)
  • Decisions regarding initiating and intensifying pharmacotherapy in the very elderly should be based on an individualized risk-benefit analysis.

The European Society of Hypertension and European Society of Cardiology

The 2013 guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology11 recommend that for elderly patients under age 80, antihypertensive treatment may be considered at systolic values higher than 140 mm Hg and aimed at values lower than 140 mm Hg if the patient is fit and treatment is well tolerated.

For those over age 80 with an initial systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, the guidelines recommend lowering systolic pressure to between 150 and 140 mm Hg, provided the patient is in good physical and mental condition. In frail elderly patients, they recommend leaving decisions on antihypertensive therapy to the treating physician, based on monitoring of the clinical effects of treatment.11

The ADS/PATH guidelines

When finalizing our recommendations,1 we considered the characteristics of frailty and the following key points from the evidence:

  • Although evidence from drug treatment trials indicates that there is benefit in treating healthy older adults who have hypertension, the benefit of treating frail older adults is unknown.
  • Major trials enrolled elderly patients only if they had systolic blood pressures of at least 160 mm Hg. Therefore, evidence supports initiating pharmacotherapy at a systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • No evidence from randomized controlled trials supports a systolic target lower than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, and there is some evidence that such a target does not benefit.
  • The benefit of adding a third medication to lower blood pressure has not been studied.
  • Frailty makes the potential benefits of strict blood pressure targets even less certain and increases the possibility of harm from adverse drug events.
  • The only study of very old adults, HYVET,44 enrolled relatively healthy older adults and few with orthostasis, while excluding those with a standing systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above, we advise against unnecessarily strict targets and recommend stopping antihypertensive medications that are used for the sole purpose of keeping the systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg. Our guidelines are unique in that they focus equally on when to stop and when to start medications. We concluded that without evidence of definitive benefit, “less is more” with frailty.55 We believe that if physicians and health professionals understand the limitations of the evidence, they can be more confident in stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level.

We recommend the following (Table 4):

Before treating

  • Carefully review the risks and the potential but unproven benefits of treatment.
  • To avoid overtreatment, treatment decisions should be based on blood pressure measurements in the seated (not supine) position, while also considering the presence of orthostasis.
  • To evaluate orthostasis, measure blood pressure in the supine position, then immediately on standing, and again after 2 minutes. Ask the patient if he or she feels light-headed or dizzy when standing.

Stop treatment

  • If the seated systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, medications can be tapered and discontinued to achieve the targets described below.
  • Before discontinuation, consider whether the medications are treating additional conditions such as rate control for atrial fibrillation or symptomatic management of heart failure.
  • It is uncertain whether to discontinue treatment when there is a history of stroke. Consider that treatment with two medications resulted in an absolute risk reduction for disabling stroke of 1.64% over approximately 4 years for adults with previous stroke and a mean age of 64,57 an effect that may be more prominent at higher systolic pressures.

Start treatment

  • Consider starting treatment when systolic pressure is 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • Aim for a seated systolic pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg if there are no adverse effects from treatment that affect quality of life.
  • If there is symptomatic orthostasis or if standing systolic pressure is lower than 140 mm Hg, the target seated systolic pressure can be adjusted upwards.
  • In the severely frail nearing the end of life, a target systolic pressure of 160 to 190 mm Hg is reasonable.
  • The blood pressure target is the same in people with diabetes.
  • In general, use no more than two medications.

Dissemination and implementation

The ADS/PATH guideline is intended for use by physicians and other health professionals (eg, pharmacists and nurses) who care for frail older adults or who work in long-term care facilities. Since creating our guideline, we have disseminated it to physicians, pharmacists, and other health professionals through academic detailing, large conferences, and interactive webinars.

While we do not have objective evidence of practice change, our evaluation data found that 34% of 403 family physicians who received academic detailing indicated that the guideline would change their practice, while 36% stated that the guideline confirmed their practice, an indication that family physicians are sensitive to the needs of the frail elderly.

Because health professionals may be wary of stopping medications and not meeting recommended targets, there may be barriers to adopting this guideline. However, our experience with the PATH program indicates that these barriers can be overcome using effective communication strategies between health professionals and consumers.

AN APPROACH APPROPRIATE TO FRAILTY

There is no direct evidence for systolic blood pressure targets in the frail elderly, so we applied evidence from the nonfrail elderly. Our recommendations differ somewhat from those of other groups, which recommend targets below 140 to 150 mm Hg for older adults, although some do advise caution in the elderly for whom a substantial fall in blood pressure might be poorly tolerated. Despite these messages, we believe that clearer guidance is needed to direct health practitioners toward models that acknowledge that frail patients are in a precarious balance of health and may be harmed by treatments that strive to lower blood pressure to unproven targets. For this reason, our guideline clearly indicates when to decrease or stop drug treatment.

After physicians and health professionals examine the evidence and more fully understand the benefits and harms of treating frail older adults, we are confident that they will be more comfortable stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level and instead use an approach that is more appropriate to frailty. We hope clinicians can use this guideline with the same enthusiasm applied to other guidelines, and we welcome discussion.

 


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank and acknowledge Tanya MacLeod and Kathryn Yuill for their review of and advice about the manuscript.

References
  1. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization program. Hypertension guidelines. Treating hypertension in frailty. http://pathclinic.ca/resources/hypertension/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  2. Theou O, Rockwood MR, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Disability and co-morbidity in relation to frailty: how much do they overlap? Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012; 55:e1e8.
  3. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210:901908.
  4. Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:28702874.
  5. Ekerstad N, Swahn E, Janzon M, et al. Frailty is independently associated with short-term outcomes for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2011; 124:23972404.
  6. Theou O, Rockwood K. Should frailty status always be considered when treating the elderly patient? Aging Health 2012; 8:261271.
  7. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005; 173:489495.
  8. Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008; 8:24.
  9. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, et al; ACCF Task Force. ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2011; 123:24342506.
  10. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP). 2014 CHEP recommendations. www.hypertension.ca/en/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  11. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2013; 34:21592219.
  12. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013; 14:392397.
  13. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56:M146M156.
  14. Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Cawthon PM, et al; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group. A comparison of frailty indexes for the prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and mortality in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:492498.
  15. Avila-Funes JA, Amieva H, Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: the three-city study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:453461.
  16. Bergman H, Ferrucci L, Guralnik J, et al. Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm—issues and controversies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007; 62:731737.
  17. Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:601608.
  18. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Balfour JL, Higby HR, Kaplan GA. Antecedents of frailty over three decades in an older cohort. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998; 53:S9S16.
  19. Matthews M, Lucas A, Boland R, et al. Use of a questionnaire to screen for frailty in the elderly: an exploratory study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16:3440.
  20. Salvi F, Morichi V, Grilli A, et al. Screening for frailty in elderly emergency department patients by using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR). J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:313318.
  21. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2001; 1:323336.
  22. Kellen E, Bulens P, Deckx L, et al. Identifying an accurate pre-screening tool in geriatric oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010; 75:243248.
  23. Rolfson DB, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Tahir A, Rockwood K. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing 2006; 35:526529.
  24. Martin FC, Brighton P. Frailty: different tools for different purposes? Age Ageing 2008; 37:129131.
  25. Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The mini-cog: a cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000; 15:10211027.
  26. Reisberg B, Ferris SH. Brief Cognitive Rating Scale (BCRS). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24:629636.
  27. Moorhouse P, Mallery LH. Palliative and therapeutic harmonization: a model for appropriate decision-making in frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:23262332.
  28. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization Clinic (PATH). www.pathclinic.ca. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  29. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/ADS.htm. Accessed January 8, 2014.
  30. Mallery LH, Moorhouse P. Respecting frailty. J Med Ethics 2011; 37:126128.
  31. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. Issues in hypertension 2011. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/files/Hypertension%20book.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  32. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311:507520.
  33. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289:25602572.
  34. Amery A, Birkenhäger W, Brixko P, et al. Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial. Lancet 1985; 1:13491354.
  35. Coope J, Warrender TS. Randomised trial of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients in primary care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:11451151.
  36. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265:32553264.
  37. Dahlöf B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Scherstén B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338:12811285.
  38. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party. BMJ 1992; 304:405412.
  39. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997; 350:757764.
  40. Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16:18231829.
  41. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, et al; SCOPE Study Group. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21:875886.
  42. JATOS Study Group. Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertens Res 2008; 31:21152127.
  43. Oparil S, Yarows SA, Patel S, Fang H, Zhang J, Satlin A. Efficacy and safety of combined use of aliskiren and valsartan in patients with hypertension: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2007; 370:221229.
  44. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al; HYVET Study Group. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:18871898.
  45. Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD000028.
  46. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;CD004937.
  47. Allen M, Kelly K, Fleming I. Hypertension in elderly patients: recommended systolic targets are not evidence based [in French]. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59:1924.
  48. Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ 2012; 344:e3863.
  49. Sabayan B, Oleksik AM, Maier AB, et al. High blood pressure and resilience to physical and cognitive decline in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:20142019.
  50. Sabayan B, van Vliet P, de Ruijter W, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJ, Westendorp RG. High blood pressure, physical and cognitive function, and risk of stroke in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Stroke 2013; 44:1520.
  51. Poortvliet RK, Blom JW, de Craen AJ, et al. Low blood pressure predicts increased mortality in very old age even without heart failure: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15:528533.
  52. Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE. Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:11621168.
  53. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358:10331041.
  54. Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, et al; PRoFESS Study Group. Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:12251237.
  55. Garfinkel D, Mangin D. Feasibility study of a systematic approach for discontinuation of multiple medications in older adults: addressing polypharmacy. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:16481654.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Michael Allen, MD, MSc
Dalhousie University, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Isobel Fleming, BScPharm ACPR
Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Kim Kelly, BScPharm
Drug Evaluation Unit, Capital Health, Department of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Susan Bowles, PharmD, MSc
Dalhousie University, College of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Jill Duncan, BScPharm
Dalhousie University, Masters in Applied Health Sciences Research Candidate, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Paige Moorhouse, MD, MPH, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Address: Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, Centre for Health Care of the Elderly, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 5955 Veterans’ Memorial Lane, Ste. 2650, Halifax, NS B3H 2E1, Canada; e-mail: laurie.mallery@cdha.nshealth.ca

This work was done as part of a project by the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and the PATH program to develop an evidence-based CME program on hypertension. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness through the Drug Evaluation Alliance of Nova Scotia (DEANS). Dr. Allen is Director of the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and has received funds for research and program development from DEANS. Ms. Fleming is the senior detailer with the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service. Ms. Kelly is a drug evaluation pharmacist. The Drug Evaluation Unit is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
427-437
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Michael Allen, MD, MSc
Dalhousie University, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Isobel Fleming, BScPharm ACPR
Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Kim Kelly, BScPharm
Drug Evaluation Unit, Capital Health, Department of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Susan Bowles, PharmD, MSc
Dalhousie University, College of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Jill Duncan, BScPharm
Dalhousie University, Masters in Applied Health Sciences Research Candidate, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Paige Moorhouse, MD, MPH, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Address: Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, Centre for Health Care of the Elderly, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 5955 Veterans’ Memorial Lane, Ste. 2650, Halifax, NS B3H 2E1, Canada; e-mail: laurie.mallery@cdha.nshealth.ca

This work was done as part of a project by the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and the PATH program to develop an evidence-based CME program on hypertension. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness through the Drug Evaluation Alliance of Nova Scotia (DEANS). Dr. Allen is Director of the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and has received funds for research and program development from DEANS. Ms. Fleming is the senior detailer with the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service. Ms. Kelly is a drug evaluation pharmacist. The Drug Evaluation Unit is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness.

Author and Disclosure Information

Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Michael Allen, MD, MSc
Dalhousie University, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Isobel Fleming, BScPharm ACPR
Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service, Continuing Professional Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Kim Kelly, BScPharm
Drug Evaluation Unit, Capital Health, Department of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Susan Bowles, PharmD, MSc
Dalhousie University, College of Pharmacy, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Jill Duncan, BScPharm
Dalhousie University, Masters in Applied Health Sciences Research Candidate, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Paige Moorhouse, MD, MPH, FRCPC, MSM
Dalhousie University, Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia; co-founder of the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program

Address: Laurie Herzig Mallery, MD, FRCPC, Centre for Health Care of the Elderly, QEII Health Sciences Centre, 5955 Veterans’ Memorial Lane, Ste. 2650, Halifax, NS B3H 2E1, Canada; e-mail: laurie.mallery@cdha.nshealth.ca

This work was done as part of a project by the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and the PATH program to develop an evidence-based CME program on hypertension. The Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness through the Drug Evaluation Alliance of Nova Scotia (DEANS). Dr. Allen is Director of the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service and has received funds for research and program development from DEANS. Ms. Fleming is the senior detailer with the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service. Ms. Kelly is a drug evaluation pharmacist. The Drug Evaluation Unit is funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Frail older adults deserve guidelines that take frailty into account while assessing the potential benefit and risks of treatment.

Specifically, our group—the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service (ADS) and the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program—recommends that physicians strive to achieve more liberal treatment targets for elderly frail patients who have high blood pressure,1 as evidence does not support an aggressive approach in the frail elderly and the potential exists for harm.

This article reviews the evidence and reasoning that were used to develop and promote a guideline for drug treatment of hypertension in frail older adults. Our recommendations differ from other guidelines in that they focus as much on stopping or decreasing therapy as on starting or increasing it.

FRAILTY INCREASES THE RISK OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

The word frail, applied to older adults, describes those who have complex medical illnesses severe enough to compromise their ability to live independently.2 Many have multiple coexisting medical problems for which they take numerous drugs, in addition to dementia, impaired mobility, compromised functional ability, or a history of falling.

Frailty denotes vulnerability; it increases the risk of adverse effects from medical and surgical procedures,3 complicates drug therapy,4 prolongs hospital length of stay,5 leads to functional and cognitive decline,6 increases the risk of institutionalization,7 and reduces life expectancy8—all of which affect the benefit and harm of medical treatments.

Guidelines for treating hypertension9–11 now acknowledge that little evidence exists to support starting treatment for systolic blood pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg or aiming for a target of less than 140 mm Hg for “very old” adults, commonly defined as over the age of 80. New guidelines loosen the treatment targets for the very old, but they do not specify targets for the frail and do not describe how to recognize or measure frailty.

RECOGNIZING AND MEASURING FRAILTY

A number of tools are available to recognize and measure frailty.12

The Fried frailty assessment13 has five items:

  • Unintentional weight loss
  • Self-reported exhaustion
  • Weakness in grip
  • Slow walking speed
  • Low physical activity and energy expenditure.

People are deemed frail if they have three or more of these five. However, experts disagree about whether this system is too sensitive14 or not sensitive enough.15,16

The FRAIL questionnaire17 also has five items:

  • Fatigue
  • Resistance (inability to climb stairs)
  • Ambulation (inability to walk 1 city block)
  • Illness (more than 5 major illnesses)
  • Weight loss.

People are deemed frail if they have at least three of these five items, and “prefrail” if they have two.

These and other tools are limited by being dichotomous: they classify people as being either frail or not frail18–20 but do not define the spectrum of frailty.

Other frailty assessments such as the Frailty Index21 identify frailty based on the number of accumulated health deficits but take a long time to complete, making them difficult to use in busy clinical settings.22–24

The Clinical Frailty Scale7 is a validated scale that categorizes frailty based on physical and functional indicators of health, such as cognition, function, and mobility, with scores that range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill).7,12

The Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT) uses scaling compatible with the Clinical Frailty Scale but has been developed for use as a practical and interpretable frailty screening tool for nonexperts (Table 1). The FACT assesses cognition, mobility, function, and the social situation, using a combination of caregiver report and objective measures. To assess cognition, a health care professional uses items from the Mini-Cog25 (ie, the ability to draw an analog clock face and then recall three unrelated items following the clock-drawing test) and the memory axis of the Brief Cognitive Rating Scale26 (ie, the ability to recall current events, the current US president, and the names of children or spouse). Mobility, function, and social circumstance scores are assigned according to the caregiver report of the patient’s baseline status.

The FACT can be completed in busy clinical settings. Once a caregiver is identified, it takes about 5 minutes to complete.

Our guideline27–31 is intended for those with a score of 7 or more on the Clinical Frailty Scale or FACT,7,12 a score we chose because it describes people who are severely frail with shortened life expectancy.8 At this level, people need help with all instrumental activities of daily living (eg, handling finances, medication management, household chores, and shopping) as well as with basic activities of daily living such as bathing or dressing.

 

 

REVIEWING THE LIMITED EVIDENCE

We found no studies that addressed the risks and benefits of treating hypertension in frail older adults; therefore, we concentrated on studies that enrolled individuals who were chronologically old but not frail. We reviewed prominent guidelines,9–11,32,33 the evidence base for these guidelines,34–44 and Cochrane reviews.45,46 A detailed description of the evidence used to build our recommendation can be found online.31

When we deliberated on treatment targets, we reviewed evidence from two types of randomized controlled trials47:

Drug treatment trials randomize patients to different treatments, such as placebo versus a drug or one drug compared with another drug. Patients in different treatment groups may achieve different blood pressures and clinical outcomes, and this information is then used to define optimal targets. However, it may be difficult to determine if the benefit came from lowering blood pressure or from some other effect of the drug, which can be independent of blood pressure lowering.

Treat-to-target trials randomize patients to different blood pressure goals, but the groups are treated with the same or similar drugs. Therefore, any identified benefit can be attributed to the differences in blood pressure rather than the medications used. Compared with a drug treatment trial, this type of trial provides stronger evidence about optimal targets.

We also considered the characteristics of frailty, the dilemma of polypharmacy, and the relevance of the available scientific evidence to those who are frail.

Drug treatment trials

A Cochrane review45 of 15 studies with approximately 24,000 elderly participants found that treating hypertension decreased the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as fatal and nonfatal stroke in the “elderly” (defined as age ≥ 60) and “very elderly” (age ≥ 80). However, in the very elderly, all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significantly different with treatment compared with placebo. The mean duration of treatment was 4.5 years in the elderly and 2.2 years in the very elderly (Table 2). Of importance, all the trials enrolled only those individuals whose systolic blood pressure was at least 160 mm Hg at baseline.

None of the studies were treat-to-target trials—patients were assigned either active medication or placebo. Thus, these trials provide evidence of benefit for treating hypertension in the elderly and very elderly but do not identify the optimal target. All of the drug treatment trials showed benefit, but none achieved a systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg with active treatment (Table 3). Therefore, these studies do not support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly.

Treat-to-target trials: JATOS and VALISH

The Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (JATOS)42 and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension (VALISH) study43 each enrolled more than 3,000 people age 65 or older (mean age approximately 75). Patients were randomized to either a strict systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg or a higher (more permissive) target of 140 to 160 mm Hg in JATOS and 140 to 149 mm Hg in VALISH.

In both trials, the group with strict targets achieved a systolic pressure of approximately 136 mm Hg, while the group with higher blood pressure targets achieved a systolic pressure of 146 mm Hg in JATOS and 142 mm Hg in VALISH. Despite these differences, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome.

Thus, treat-to-target studies also fail to support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, although it is important to recognize the limitations of the studies. Approximately 15% of the participants had cardiovascular disease, so the applicability of the findings to patients with target-organ damage is uncertain. In addition, there were fewer efficacy outcome events than expected, which suggests that the studies were underpowered.

When to start drug treatment

In each of the drug treatment and treat-to-target trials, the inclusion criterion for study entry was a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg, with a mean blood pressure at entry into the drug treatment trials of 182/95 mm Hg.46 Thus, data support starting treatment if the systolic blood pressure is above 160 mm Hg, but not lower.

Notably, in all but one study,46 at least two-thirds of the participants took no more than two antihypertensive medications. Since adverse events become more common as the number of medications increases, the benefit of adding a third drug to lower blood pressure is uncertain.

Evidence in the ‘very elderly’: HYVET

With the exception of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET),44 the mean age of elderly patients in the reported studies was between 67 and 76.

HYVET patients were age 80 and older (mean age 84) and were randomized to receive either indapamide (with or without perindopril) or placebo. The trial was stopped early at 2 years because the mortality rate was lower in the treatment group (10.1%) than in the placebo group (12.3%) (number needed to treat 46, 95% confidence interval 24–637, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke.

Notably, trials that are stopped early may overestimate treatment benefit.48

Evidence in frail older adults

While the above studies provide some information about managing hypertension in the elderly, the participants were generally healthy. HYVET44 specifically excluded those with a standing systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and enrolled few patients with orthostasis (7.9% in the placebo group and 8.8% in the treatment group), a condition commonly associated with frailty. As such, these studies may be less relevant to the frail elderly, who are at higher risk of adverse drug events and have competing risks for morbidity and mortality.

Observational studies, in fact, raise questions about whether tight blood pressure control improves clinical outcomes for the very elderly. In the Leiden 85-plus study, lower systolic blood pressure was associated with lower cognitive scores, worse functional ability,49,50 and a higher mortality rate51 compared with higher systolic pressure, although it is uncertain whether these outcomes were indicative of underlying disease that could result in lower blood pressure or an effect of blood pressure-lowering.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey52 found an association between blood pressure and mortality rate that varied by walking speed. For slower walkers (based on the 6-minute walk test), higher systolic pressures were not associated with a higher risk of death, suggesting that when older adults are frail (as indicated by their slow walking speed) they are less likely to benefit from aggressive treatment of hypertension.

People at high risk because of stroke

Because the evidence is limited, it is even more difficult to judge whether lowering blood pressure below 140 mm Hg is beneficial for frail patients who have a history of stroke, compared with the possibility that medications will cause adverse effects such as weakness, orthostasis, and falls. When reviewing the evidence to answer this question, we especially looked at outcomes that affect quality of life, such as nonfatal stroke leading to disability. In contrast, because the frail elderly have competing causes of mortality, we could not assume that a mortality benefit shown in nonfrail populations could be applied to frail populations.

The PROGRESS trial (Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study)53 was in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack and a mean age of 64, who were treated with either perindopril (with or without indapamide) or placebo.

At almost 4 years, the rate of disabling stroke was 2.7% in the treatment group and 4.3% in the placebo group, a relative risk reduction of 38% and an absolute risk reduction of 1.64% (number needed to treat 61, 95% confidence interval 39–139). The relative risk reduction for all strokes (fatal and nonfatal) was similar across a range of baseline systolic pressures, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the prespecified subgroup that had hypertension at baseline (mean blood pressure 159/94 mm Hg) than in the normotensive subgroup (mean blood pressure 136/79 mm Hg), suggesting that treatment is most beneficial for those with higher systolic blood pressures. Also, the benefit was only demonstrated in the subgroup that received two antihypertensive medications; those who received perindopril alone showed no benefit.

This study involved relatively young patients in relatively good health except for their strokes. The extent to which the results can be extrapolated to older, frail adults is uncertain because of the time needed to achieve benefit and because of the added vulnerability of frailty, which could make treatment with two antihypertensive medications riskier.

PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes),54 another study in patients with previous stroke (mean age 66) showed no benefit over 2.5 years in the primary outcome of stroke using telmesartan 80 mg daily compared with placebo. This result is concordant with that of PROGRESS,53 in which patients who took only one medication did not show a significant decrease in the rate of stroke.

A possible reason for the lack of benefit from monotherapy was that the differences in blood pressure between the placebo group and the treatment group on monotherapy were small in both studies (3.8/2.0 mm Hg in PRoFESS, 5/3 mm Hg in PROGRESS). In contrast, patients on dual therapy in PROGRESS decreased their blood pressure by 12/5 mm Hg compared with placebo.

 

 

CURRENT HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES

Current guidelines make reference to the elderly, but we found none that made specific recommendations for the frail elderly.

JNC 8

In December 2013, members of the Eighth Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 8) released new recommendations.32 One significant revision was to support higher blood pressure targets for older adults (age 60 and older). Whereas JNC 7 stated that lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular complications,33 JNC 8 now acknowledges that there is no strong evidence to support blood pressure targets below 150/90 mm Hg for hypertensive persons without kidney disease or diabetes age 60 and older. Thus, in the general population age 60 and older, JNC 8 recommends starting antihypertensive treatment when blood pressure is 150/90 mm Hg or higher, and treating to a goal blood pressure of less than 150/90 mm Hg. JNC 8 makes no recommendation about how to adjust blood pressure targets for frailty or how to measure blood pressure.

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association

In 2011, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association published a consensus document on the management of hypertension in the elderly.9

They acknowledged that the generally recommended blood pressure goal of lower than 140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated elderly patients is based on expert opinion rather than on data from randomized controlled trials, but nevertheless recommended a target systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg for older adults, except for octogenarians.

For those over age 80, systolic levels of 140 to 145 mm Hg can be acceptable if tolerated and if the patient does not experience orthostasis when standing. Systolic pressure lower than 130 mm Hg and diastolic pressures lower than 65 mm Hg should be avoided in this age group.

The document acknowledges that systolic pressure may have to remain above 150 mm Hg if there is no response to four “well-selected drugs” or if there are unacceptable side effects. In these cases, the lowest “safely achieved” systolic blood pressure should be the goal.

Canadian Hypertension Education Program

The 2014 Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) report makes several recommendations for the “very elderly,” a group they define as over the age of 80. The CHEP website and resources include the following recommendations10:

  • For the very elderly without diabetes or target-organ damage, drug therapy should be initiated when systolic blood pressure is higher than 160 mm Hg to reach a systolic blood pressure target lower than 150 mm Hg. This is a grade C level recommendation, indicating that it is based on low-quality trials, unvalidated surrogate outcomes, or results from nonrandomized observational studies.
  • For the very elderly with macrovascular target-organ damage, antihypertensive therapy should be considered if systolic blood pressure readings average 140 mm Hg or higher (grade D for 140 to 160 mm Hg; grade A for higher than 160 mm Hg), although caution should be exercised in elderly patients who are frail. (Grade D recommendations are the weakest, as they are based on low-powered, imprecise studies or expert opinion, whereas grade A recommendations are based on the strongest evidence from high-quality randomized clinical trials.)
  • Decisions regarding initiating and intensifying pharmacotherapy in the very elderly should be based on an individualized risk-benefit analysis.

The European Society of Hypertension and European Society of Cardiology

The 2013 guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology11 recommend that for elderly patients under age 80, antihypertensive treatment may be considered at systolic values higher than 140 mm Hg and aimed at values lower than 140 mm Hg if the patient is fit and treatment is well tolerated.

For those over age 80 with an initial systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, the guidelines recommend lowering systolic pressure to between 150 and 140 mm Hg, provided the patient is in good physical and mental condition. In frail elderly patients, they recommend leaving decisions on antihypertensive therapy to the treating physician, based on monitoring of the clinical effects of treatment.11

The ADS/PATH guidelines

When finalizing our recommendations,1 we considered the characteristics of frailty and the following key points from the evidence:

  • Although evidence from drug treatment trials indicates that there is benefit in treating healthy older adults who have hypertension, the benefit of treating frail older adults is unknown.
  • Major trials enrolled elderly patients only if they had systolic blood pressures of at least 160 mm Hg. Therefore, evidence supports initiating pharmacotherapy at a systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • No evidence from randomized controlled trials supports a systolic target lower than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, and there is some evidence that such a target does not benefit.
  • The benefit of adding a third medication to lower blood pressure has not been studied.
  • Frailty makes the potential benefits of strict blood pressure targets even less certain and increases the possibility of harm from adverse drug events.
  • The only study of very old adults, HYVET,44 enrolled relatively healthy older adults and few with orthostasis, while excluding those with a standing systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above, we advise against unnecessarily strict targets and recommend stopping antihypertensive medications that are used for the sole purpose of keeping the systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg. Our guidelines are unique in that they focus equally on when to stop and when to start medications. We concluded that without evidence of definitive benefit, “less is more” with frailty.55 We believe that if physicians and health professionals understand the limitations of the evidence, they can be more confident in stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level.

We recommend the following (Table 4):

Before treating

  • Carefully review the risks and the potential but unproven benefits of treatment.
  • To avoid overtreatment, treatment decisions should be based on blood pressure measurements in the seated (not supine) position, while also considering the presence of orthostasis.
  • To evaluate orthostasis, measure blood pressure in the supine position, then immediately on standing, and again after 2 minutes. Ask the patient if he or she feels light-headed or dizzy when standing.

Stop treatment

  • If the seated systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, medications can be tapered and discontinued to achieve the targets described below.
  • Before discontinuation, consider whether the medications are treating additional conditions such as rate control for atrial fibrillation or symptomatic management of heart failure.
  • It is uncertain whether to discontinue treatment when there is a history of stroke. Consider that treatment with two medications resulted in an absolute risk reduction for disabling stroke of 1.64% over approximately 4 years for adults with previous stroke and a mean age of 64,57 an effect that may be more prominent at higher systolic pressures.

Start treatment

  • Consider starting treatment when systolic pressure is 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • Aim for a seated systolic pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg if there are no adverse effects from treatment that affect quality of life.
  • If there is symptomatic orthostasis or if standing systolic pressure is lower than 140 mm Hg, the target seated systolic pressure can be adjusted upwards.
  • In the severely frail nearing the end of life, a target systolic pressure of 160 to 190 mm Hg is reasonable.
  • The blood pressure target is the same in people with diabetes.
  • In general, use no more than two medications.

Dissemination and implementation

The ADS/PATH guideline is intended for use by physicians and other health professionals (eg, pharmacists and nurses) who care for frail older adults or who work in long-term care facilities. Since creating our guideline, we have disseminated it to physicians, pharmacists, and other health professionals through academic detailing, large conferences, and interactive webinars.

While we do not have objective evidence of practice change, our evaluation data found that 34% of 403 family physicians who received academic detailing indicated that the guideline would change their practice, while 36% stated that the guideline confirmed their practice, an indication that family physicians are sensitive to the needs of the frail elderly.

Because health professionals may be wary of stopping medications and not meeting recommended targets, there may be barriers to adopting this guideline. However, our experience with the PATH program indicates that these barriers can be overcome using effective communication strategies between health professionals and consumers.

AN APPROACH APPROPRIATE TO FRAILTY

There is no direct evidence for systolic blood pressure targets in the frail elderly, so we applied evidence from the nonfrail elderly. Our recommendations differ somewhat from those of other groups, which recommend targets below 140 to 150 mm Hg for older adults, although some do advise caution in the elderly for whom a substantial fall in blood pressure might be poorly tolerated. Despite these messages, we believe that clearer guidance is needed to direct health practitioners toward models that acknowledge that frail patients are in a precarious balance of health and may be harmed by treatments that strive to lower blood pressure to unproven targets. For this reason, our guideline clearly indicates when to decrease or stop drug treatment.

After physicians and health professionals examine the evidence and more fully understand the benefits and harms of treating frail older adults, we are confident that they will be more comfortable stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level and instead use an approach that is more appropriate to frailty. We hope clinicians can use this guideline with the same enthusiasm applied to other guidelines, and we welcome discussion.

 


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank and acknowledge Tanya MacLeod and Kathryn Yuill for their review of and advice about the manuscript.

Frail older adults deserve guidelines that take frailty into account while assessing the potential benefit and risks of treatment.

Specifically, our group—the Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service (ADS) and the Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) program—recommends that physicians strive to achieve more liberal treatment targets for elderly frail patients who have high blood pressure,1 as evidence does not support an aggressive approach in the frail elderly and the potential exists for harm.

This article reviews the evidence and reasoning that were used to develop and promote a guideline for drug treatment of hypertension in frail older adults. Our recommendations differ from other guidelines in that they focus as much on stopping or decreasing therapy as on starting or increasing it.

FRAILTY INCREASES THE RISK OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

The word frail, applied to older adults, describes those who have complex medical illnesses severe enough to compromise their ability to live independently.2 Many have multiple coexisting medical problems for which they take numerous drugs, in addition to dementia, impaired mobility, compromised functional ability, or a history of falling.

Frailty denotes vulnerability; it increases the risk of adverse effects from medical and surgical procedures,3 complicates drug therapy,4 prolongs hospital length of stay,5 leads to functional and cognitive decline,6 increases the risk of institutionalization,7 and reduces life expectancy8—all of which affect the benefit and harm of medical treatments.

Guidelines for treating hypertension9–11 now acknowledge that little evidence exists to support starting treatment for systolic blood pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg or aiming for a target of less than 140 mm Hg for “very old” adults, commonly defined as over the age of 80. New guidelines loosen the treatment targets for the very old, but they do not specify targets for the frail and do not describe how to recognize or measure frailty.

RECOGNIZING AND MEASURING FRAILTY

A number of tools are available to recognize and measure frailty.12

The Fried frailty assessment13 has five items:

  • Unintentional weight loss
  • Self-reported exhaustion
  • Weakness in grip
  • Slow walking speed
  • Low physical activity and energy expenditure.

People are deemed frail if they have three or more of these five. However, experts disagree about whether this system is too sensitive14 or not sensitive enough.15,16

The FRAIL questionnaire17 also has five items:

  • Fatigue
  • Resistance (inability to climb stairs)
  • Ambulation (inability to walk 1 city block)
  • Illness (more than 5 major illnesses)
  • Weight loss.

People are deemed frail if they have at least three of these five items, and “prefrail” if they have two.

These and other tools are limited by being dichotomous: they classify people as being either frail or not frail18–20 but do not define the spectrum of frailty.

Other frailty assessments such as the Frailty Index21 identify frailty based on the number of accumulated health deficits but take a long time to complete, making them difficult to use in busy clinical settings.22–24

The Clinical Frailty Scale7 is a validated scale that categorizes frailty based on physical and functional indicators of health, such as cognition, function, and mobility, with scores that range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill).7,12

The Frailty Assessment for Care-planning Tool (FACT) uses scaling compatible with the Clinical Frailty Scale but has been developed for use as a practical and interpretable frailty screening tool for nonexperts (Table 1). The FACT assesses cognition, mobility, function, and the social situation, using a combination of caregiver report and objective measures. To assess cognition, a health care professional uses items from the Mini-Cog25 (ie, the ability to draw an analog clock face and then recall three unrelated items following the clock-drawing test) and the memory axis of the Brief Cognitive Rating Scale26 (ie, the ability to recall current events, the current US president, and the names of children or spouse). Mobility, function, and social circumstance scores are assigned according to the caregiver report of the patient’s baseline status.

The FACT can be completed in busy clinical settings. Once a caregiver is identified, it takes about 5 minutes to complete.

Our guideline27–31 is intended for those with a score of 7 or more on the Clinical Frailty Scale or FACT,7,12 a score we chose because it describes people who are severely frail with shortened life expectancy.8 At this level, people need help with all instrumental activities of daily living (eg, handling finances, medication management, household chores, and shopping) as well as with basic activities of daily living such as bathing or dressing.

 

 

REVIEWING THE LIMITED EVIDENCE

We found no studies that addressed the risks and benefits of treating hypertension in frail older adults; therefore, we concentrated on studies that enrolled individuals who were chronologically old but not frail. We reviewed prominent guidelines,9–11,32,33 the evidence base for these guidelines,34–44 and Cochrane reviews.45,46 A detailed description of the evidence used to build our recommendation can be found online.31

When we deliberated on treatment targets, we reviewed evidence from two types of randomized controlled trials47:

Drug treatment trials randomize patients to different treatments, such as placebo versus a drug or one drug compared with another drug. Patients in different treatment groups may achieve different blood pressures and clinical outcomes, and this information is then used to define optimal targets. However, it may be difficult to determine if the benefit came from lowering blood pressure or from some other effect of the drug, which can be independent of blood pressure lowering.

Treat-to-target trials randomize patients to different blood pressure goals, but the groups are treated with the same or similar drugs. Therefore, any identified benefit can be attributed to the differences in blood pressure rather than the medications used. Compared with a drug treatment trial, this type of trial provides stronger evidence about optimal targets.

We also considered the characteristics of frailty, the dilemma of polypharmacy, and the relevance of the available scientific evidence to those who are frail.

Drug treatment trials

A Cochrane review45 of 15 studies with approximately 24,000 elderly participants found that treating hypertension decreased the rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as fatal and nonfatal stroke in the “elderly” (defined as age ≥ 60) and “very elderly” (age ≥ 80). However, in the very elderly, all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significantly different with treatment compared with placebo. The mean duration of treatment was 4.5 years in the elderly and 2.2 years in the very elderly (Table 2). Of importance, all the trials enrolled only those individuals whose systolic blood pressure was at least 160 mm Hg at baseline.

None of the studies were treat-to-target trials—patients were assigned either active medication or placebo. Thus, these trials provide evidence of benefit for treating hypertension in the elderly and very elderly but do not identify the optimal target. All of the drug treatment trials showed benefit, but none achieved a systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg with active treatment (Table 3). Therefore, these studies do not support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly.

Treat-to-target trials: JATOS and VALISH

The Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (JATOS)42 and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension (VALISH) study43 each enrolled more than 3,000 people age 65 or older (mean age approximately 75). Patients were randomized to either a strict systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg or a higher (more permissive) target of 140 to 160 mm Hg in JATOS and 140 to 149 mm Hg in VALISH.

In both trials, the group with strict targets achieved a systolic pressure of approximately 136 mm Hg, while the group with higher blood pressure targets achieved a systolic pressure of 146 mm Hg in JATOS and 142 mm Hg in VALISH. Despite these differences, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome.

Thus, treat-to-target studies also fail to support a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, although it is important to recognize the limitations of the studies. Approximately 15% of the participants had cardiovascular disease, so the applicability of the findings to patients with target-organ damage is uncertain. In addition, there were fewer efficacy outcome events than expected, which suggests that the studies were underpowered.

When to start drug treatment

In each of the drug treatment and treat-to-target trials, the inclusion criterion for study entry was a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg, with a mean blood pressure at entry into the drug treatment trials of 182/95 mm Hg.46 Thus, data support starting treatment if the systolic blood pressure is above 160 mm Hg, but not lower.

Notably, in all but one study,46 at least two-thirds of the participants took no more than two antihypertensive medications. Since adverse events become more common as the number of medications increases, the benefit of adding a third drug to lower blood pressure is uncertain.

Evidence in the ‘very elderly’: HYVET

With the exception of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET),44 the mean age of elderly patients in the reported studies was between 67 and 76.

HYVET patients were age 80 and older (mean age 84) and were randomized to receive either indapamide (with or without perindopril) or placebo. The trial was stopped early at 2 years because the mortality rate was lower in the treatment group (10.1%) than in the placebo group (12.3%) (number needed to treat 46, 95% confidence interval 24–637, P = .02). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of fatal and nonfatal stroke.

Notably, trials that are stopped early may overestimate treatment benefit.48

Evidence in frail older adults

While the above studies provide some information about managing hypertension in the elderly, the participants were generally healthy. HYVET44 specifically excluded those with a standing systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and enrolled few patients with orthostasis (7.9% in the placebo group and 8.8% in the treatment group), a condition commonly associated with frailty. As such, these studies may be less relevant to the frail elderly, who are at higher risk of adverse drug events and have competing risks for morbidity and mortality.

Observational studies, in fact, raise questions about whether tight blood pressure control improves clinical outcomes for the very elderly. In the Leiden 85-plus study, lower systolic blood pressure was associated with lower cognitive scores, worse functional ability,49,50 and a higher mortality rate51 compared with higher systolic pressure, although it is uncertain whether these outcomes were indicative of underlying disease that could result in lower blood pressure or an effect of blood pressure-lowering.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey52 found an association between blood pressure and mortality rate that varied by walking speed. For slower walkers (based on the 6-minute walk test), higher systolic pressures were not associated with a higher risk of death, suggesting that when older adults are frail (as indicated by their slow walking speed) they are less likely to benefit from aggressive treatment of hypertension.

People at high risk because of stroke

Because the evidence is limited, it is even more difficult to judge whether lowering blood pressure below 140 mm Hg is beneficial for frail patients who have a history of stroke, compared with the possibility that medications will cause adverse effects such as weakness, orthostasis, and falls. When reviewing the evidence to answer this question, we especially looked at outcomes that affect quality of life, such as nonfatal stroke leading to disability. In contrast, because the frail elderly have competing causes of mortality, we could not assume that a mortality benefit shown in nonfrail populations could be applied to frail populations.

The PROGRESS trial (Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study)53 was in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack and a mean age of 64, who were treated with either perindopril (with or without indapamide) or placebo.

At almost 4 years, the rate of disabling stroke was 2.7% in the treatment group and 4.3% in the placebo group, a relative risk reduction of 38% and an absolute risk reduction of 1.64% (number needed to treat 61, 95% confidence interval 39–139). The relative risk reduction for all strokes (fatal and nonfatal) was similar across a range of baseline systolic pressures, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the prespecified subgroup that had hypertension at baseline (mean blood pressure 159/94 mm Hg) than in the normotensive subgroup (mean blood pressure 136/79 mm Hg), suggesting that treatment is most beneficial for those with higher systolic blood pressures. Also, the benefit was only demonstrated in the subgroup that received two antihypertensive medications; those who received perindopril alone showed no benefit.

This study involved relatively young patients in relatively good health except for their strokes. The extent to which the results can be extrapolated to older, frail adults is uncertain because of the time needed to achieve benefit and because of the added vulnerability of frailty, which could make treatment with two antihypertensive medications riskier.

PRoFESS (Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes),54 another study in patients with previous stroke (mean age 66) showed no benefit over 2.5 years in the primary outcome of stroke using telmesartan 80 mg daily compared with placebo. This result is concordant with that of PROGRESS,53 in which patients who took only one medication did not show a significant decrease in the rate of stroke.

A possible reason for the lack of benefit from monotherapy was that the differences in blood pressure between the placebo group and the treatment group on monotherapy were small in both studies (3.8/2.0 mm Hg in PRoFESS, 5/3 mm Hg in PROGRESS). In contrast, patients on dual therapy in PROGRESS decreased their blood pressure by 12/5 mm Hg compared with placebo.

 

 

CURRENT HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES

Current guidelines make reference to the elderly, but we found none that made specific recommendations for the frail elderly.

JNC 8

In December 2013, members of the Eighth Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 8) released new recommendations.32 One significant revision was to support higher blood pressure targets for older adults (age 60 and older). Whereas JNC 7 stated that lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular complications,33 JNC 8 now acknowledges that there is no strong evidence to support blood pressure targets below 150/90 mm Hg for hypertensive persons without kidney disease or diabetes age 60 and older. Thus, in the general population age 60 and older, JNC 8 recommends starting antihypertensive treatment when blood pressure is 150/90 mm Hg or higher, and treating to a goal blood pressure of less than 150/90 mm Hg. JNC 8 makes no recommendation about how to adjust blood pressure targets for frailty or how to measure blood pressure.

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association

In 2011, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association published a consensus document on the management of hypertension in the elderly.9

They acknowledged that the generally recommended blood pressure goal of lower than 140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated elderly patients is based on expert opinion rather than on data from randomized controlled trials, but nevertheless recommended a target systolic pressure lower than 140 mm Hg for older adults, except for octogenarians.

For those over age 80, systolic levels of 140 to 145 mm Hg can be acceptable if tolerated and if the patient does not experience orthostasis when standing. Systolic pressure lower than 130 mm Hg and diastolic pressures lower than 65 mm Hg should be avoided in this age group.

The document acknowledges that systolic pressure may have to remain above 150 mm Hg if there is no response to four “well-selected drugs” or if there are unacceptable side effects. In these cases, the lowest “safely achieved” systolic blood pressure should be the goal.

Canadian Hypertension Education Program

The 2014 Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) report makes several recommendations for the “very elderly,” a group they define as over the age of 80. The CHEP website and resources include the following recommendations10:

  • For the very elderly without diabetes or target-organ damage, drug therapy should be initiated when systolic blood pressure is higher than 160 mm Hg to reach a systolic blood pressure target lower than 150 mm Hg. This is a grade C level recommendation, indicating that it is based on low-quality trials, unvalidated surrogate outcomes, or results from nonrandomized observational studies.
  • For the very elderly with macrovascular target-organ damage, antihypertensive therapy should be considered if systolic blood pressure readings average 140 mm Hg or higher (grade D for 140 to 160 mm Hg; grade A for higher than 160 mm Hg), although caution should be exercised in elderly patients who are frail. (Grade D recommendations are the weakest, as they are based on low-powered, imprecise studies or expert opinion, whereas grade A recommendations are based on the strongest evidence from high-quality randomized clinical trials.)
  • Decisions regarding initiating and intensifying pharmacotherapy in the very elderly should be based on an individualized risk-benefit analysis.

The European Society of Hypertension and European Society of Cardiology

The 2013 guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology11 recommend that for elderly patients under age 80, antihypertensive treatment may be considered at systolic values higher than 140 mm Hg and aimed at values lower than 140 mm Hg if the patient is fit and treatment is well tolerated.

For those over age 80 with an initial systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, the guidelines recommend lowering systolic pressure to between 150 and 140 mm Hg, provided the patient is in good physical and mental condition. In frail elderly patients, they recommend leaving decisions on antihypertensive therapy to the treating physician, based on monitoring of the clinical effects of treatment.11

The ADS/PATH guidelines

When finalizing our recommendations,1 we considered the characteristics of frailty and the following key points from the evidence:

  • Although evidence from drug treatment trials indicates that there is benefit in treating healthy older adults who have hypertension, the benefit of treating frail older adults is unknown.
  • Major trials enrolled elderly patients only if they had systolic blood pressures of at least 160 mm Hg. Therefore, evidence supports initiating pharmacotherapy at a systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • No evidence from randomized controlled trials supports a systolic target lower than 140 mm Hg in the elderly, and there is some evidence that such a target does not benefit.
  • The benefit of adding a third medication to lower blood pressure has not been studied.
  • Frailty makes the potential benefits of strict blood pressure targets even less certain and increases the possibility of harm from adverse drug events.
  • The only study of very old adults, HYVET,44 enrolled relatively healthy older adults and few with orthostasis, while excluding those with a standing systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above, we advise against unnecessarily strict targets and recommend stopping antihypertensive medications that are used for the sole purpose of keeping the systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg. Our guidelines are unique in that they focus equally on when to stop and when to start medications. We concluded that without evidence of definitive benefit, “less is more” with frailty.55 We believe that if physicians and health professionals understand the limitations of the evidence, they can be more confident in stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level.

We recommend the following (Table 4):

Before treating

  • Carefully review the risks and the potential but unproven benefits of treatment.
  • To avoid overtreatment, treatment decisions should be based on blood pressure measurements in the seated (not supine) position, while also considering the presence of orthostasis.
  • To evaluate orthostasis, measure blood pressure in the supine position, then immediately on standing, and again after 2 minutes. Ask the patient if he or she feels light-headed or dizzy when standing.

Stop treatment

  • If the seated systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, medications can be tapered and discontinued to achieve the targets described below.
  • Before discontinuation, consider whether the medications are treating additional conditions such as rate control for atrial fibrillation or symptomatic management of heart failure.
  • It is uncertain whether to discontinue treatment when there is a history of stroke. Consider that treatment with two medications resulted in an absolute risk reduction for disabling stroke of 1.64% over approximately 4 years for adults with previous stroke and a mean age of 64,57 an effect that may be more prominent at higher systolic pressures.

Start treatment

  • Consider starting treatment when systolic pressure is 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • Aim for a seated systolic pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg if there are no adverse effects from treatment that affect quality of life.
  • If there is symptomatic orthostasis or if standing systolic pressure is lower than 140 mm Hg, the target seated systolic pressure can be adjusted upwards.
  • In the severely frail nearing the end of life, a target systolic pressure of 160 to 190 mm Hg is reasonable.
  • The blood pressure target is the same in people with diabetes.
  • In general, use no more than two medications.

Dissemination and implementation

The ADS/PATH guideline is intended for use by physicians and other health professionals (eg, pharmacists and nurses) who care for frail older adults or who work in long-term care facilities. Since creating our guideline, we have disseminated it to physicians, pharmacists, and other health professionals through academic detailing, large conferences, and interactive webinars.

While we do not have objective evidence of practice change, our evaluation data found that 34% of 403 family physicians who received academic detailing indicated that the guideline would change their practice, while 36% stated that the guideline confirmed their practice, an indication that family physicians are sensitive to the needs of the frail elderly.

Because health professionals may be wary of stopping medications and not meeting recommended targets, there may be barriers to adopting this guideline. However, our experience with the PATH program indicates that these barriers can be overcome using effective communication strategies between health professionals and consumers.

AN APPROACH APPROPRIATE TO FRAILTY

There is no direct evidence for systolic blood pressure targets in the frail elderly, so we applied evidence from the nonfrail elderly. Our recommendations differ somewhat from those of other groups, which recommend targets below 140 to 150 mm Hg for older adults, although some do advise caution in the elderly for whom a substantial fall in blood pressure might be poorly tolerated. Despite these messages, we believe that clearer guidance is needed to direct health practitioners toward models that acknowledge that frail patients are in a precarious balance of health and may be harmed by treatments that strive to lower blood pressure to unproven targets. For this reason, our guideline clearly indicates when to decrease or stop drug treatment.

After physicians and health professionals examine the evidence and more fully understand the benefits and harms of treating frail older adults, we are confident that they will be more comfortable stopping medications that lower blood pressure to an unnecessarily low level and instead use an approach that is more appropriate to frailty. We hope clinicians can use this guideline with the same enthusiasm applied to other guidelines, and we welcome discussion.

 


Acknowledgments: We would like to thank and acknowledge Tanya MacLeod and Kathryn Yuill for their review of and advice about the manuscript.

References
  1. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization program. Hypertension guidelines. Treating hypertension in frailty. http://pathclinic.ca/resources/hypertension/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  2. Theou O, Rockwood MR, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Disability and co-morbidity in relation to frailty: how much do they overlap? Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012; 55:e1e8.
  3. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210:901908.
  4. Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:28702874.
  5. Ekerstad N, Swahn E, Janzon M, et al. Frailty is independently associated with short-term outcomes for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2011; 124:23972404.
  6. Theou O, Rockwood K. Should frailty status always be considered when treating the elderly patient? Aging Health 2012; 8:261271.
  7. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005; 173:489495.
  8. Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008; 8:24.
  9. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, et al; ACCF Task Force. ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2011; 123:24342506.
  10. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP). 2014 CHEP recommendations. www.hypertension.ca/en/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  11. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2013; 34:21592219.
  12. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013; 14:392397.
  13. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56:M146M156.
  14. Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Cawthon PM, et al; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group. A comparison of frailty indexes for the prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and mortality in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:492498.
  15. Avila-Funes JA, Amieva H, Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: the three-city study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:453461.
  16. Bergman H, Ferrucci L, Guralnik J, et al. Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm—issues and controversies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007; 62:731737.
  17. Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:601608.
  18. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Balfour JL, Higby HR, Kaplan GA. Antecedents of frailty over three decades in an older cohort. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998; 53:S9S16.
  19. Matthews M, Lucas A, Boland R, et al. Use of a questionnaire to screen for frailty in the elderly: an exploratory study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16:3440.
  20. Salvi F, Morichi V, Grilli A, et al. Screening for frailty in elderly emergency department patients by using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR). J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:313318.
  21. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2001; 1:323336.
  22. Kellen E, Bulens P, Deckx L, et al. Identifying an accurate pre-screening tool in geriatric oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010; 75:243248.
  23. Rolfson DB, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Tahir A, Rockwood K. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing 2006; 35:526529.
  24. Martin FC, Brighton P. Frailty: different tools for different purposes? Age Ageing 2008; 37:129131.
  25. Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The mini-cog: a cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000; 15:10211027.
  26. Reisberg B, Ferris SH. Brief Cognitive Rating Scale (BCRS). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24:629636.
  27. Moorhouse P, Mallery LH. Palliative and therapeutic harmonization: a model for appropriate decision-making in frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:23262332.
  28. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization Clinic (PATH). www.pathclinic.ca. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  29. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/ADS.htm. Accessed January 8, 2014.
  30. Mallery LH, Moorhouse P. Respecting frailty. J Med Ethics 2011; 37:126128.
  31. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. Issues in hypertension 2011. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/files/Hypertension%20book.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  32. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311:507520.
  33. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289:25602572.
  34. Amery A, Birkenhäger W, Brixko P, et al. Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial. Lancet 1985; 1:13491354.
  35. Coope J, Warrender TS. Randomised trial of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients in primary care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:11451151.
  36. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265:32553264.
  37. Dahlöf B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Scherstén B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338:12811285.
  38. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party. BMJ 1992; 304:405412.
  39. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997; 350:757764.
  40. Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16:18231829.
  41. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, et al; SCOPE Study Group. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21:875886.
  42. JATOS Study Group. Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertens Res 2008; 31:21152127.
  43. Oparil S, Yarows SA, Patel S, Fang H, Zhang J, Satlin A. Efficacy and safety of combined use of aliskiren and valsartan in patients with hypertension: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2007; 370:221229.
  44. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al; HYVET Study Group. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:18871898.
  45. Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD000028.
  46. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;CD004937.
  47. Allen M, Kelly K, Fleming I. Hypertension in elderly patients: recommended systolic targets are not evidence based [in French]. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59:1924.
  48. Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ 2012; 344:e3863.
  49. Sabayan B, Oleksik AM, Maier AB, et al. High blood pressure and resilience to physical and cognitive decline in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:20142019.
  50. Sabayan B, van Vliet P, de Ruijter W, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJ, Westendorp RG. High blood pressure, physical and cognitive function, and risk of stroke in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Stroke 2013; 44:1520.
  51. Poortvliet RK, Blom JW, de Craen AJ, et al. Low blood pressure predicts increased mortality in very old age even without heart failure: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15:528533.
  52. Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE. Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:11621168.
  53. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358:10331041.
  54. Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, et al; PRoFESS Study Group. Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:12251237.
  55. Garfinkel D, Mangin D. Feasibility study of a systematic approach for discontinuation of multiple medications in older adults: addressing polypharmacy. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:16481654.
References
  1. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization program. Hypertension guidelines. Treating hypertension in frailty. http://pathclinic.ca/resources/hypertension/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  2. Theou O, Rockwood MR, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Disability and co-morbidity in relation to frailty: how much do they overlap? Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012; 55:e1e8.
  3. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210:901908.
  4. Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:28702874.
  5. Ekerstad N, Swahn E, Janzon M, et al. Frailty is independently associated with short-term outcomes for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2011; 124:23972404.
  6. Theou O, Rockwood K. Should frailty status always be considered when treating the elderly patient? Aging Health 2012; 8:261271.
  7. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005; 173:489495.
  8. Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr 2008; 8:24.
  9. Aronow WS, Fleg JL, Pepine CJ, et al; ACCF Task Force. ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 2011; 123:24342506.
  10. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP). 2014 CHEP recommendations. www.hypertension.ca/en/. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  11. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2013; 34:21592219.
  12. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013; 14:392397.
  13. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56:M146M156.
  14. Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Cawthon PM, et al; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Research Group. A comparison of frailty indexes for the prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and mortality in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:492498.
  15. Avila-Funes JA, Amieva H, Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: the three-city study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57:453461.
  16. Bergman H, Ferrucci L, Guralnik J, et al. Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm—issues and controversies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007; 62:731737.
  17. Morley JE, Malmstrom TK, Miller DK. A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans. J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:601608.
  18. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Balfour JL, Higby HR, Kaplan GA. Antecedents of frailty over three decades in an older cohort. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998; 53:S9S16.
  19. Matthews M, Lucas A, Boland R, et al. Use of a questionnaire to screen for frailty in the elderly: an exploratory study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16:3440.
  20. Salvi F, Morichi V, Grilli A, et al. Screening for frailty in elderly emergency department patients by using the Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR). J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16:313318.
  21. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2001; 1:323336.
  22. Kellen E, Bulens P, Deckx L, et al. Identifying an accurate pre-screening tool in geriatric oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010; 75:243248.
  23. Rolfson DB, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Tahir A, Rockwood K. Validity and reliability of the Edmonton Frail Scale. Age Ageing 2006; 35:526529.
  24. Martin FC, Brighton P. Frailty: different tools for different purposes? Age Ageing 2008; 37:129131.
  25. Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The mini-cog: a cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000; 15:10211027.
  26. Reisberg B, Ferris SH. Brief Cognitive Rating Scale (BCRS). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24:629636.
  27. Moorhouse P, Mallery LH. Palliative and therapeutic harmonization: a model for appropriate decision-making in frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:23262332.
  28. Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization Clinic (PATH). www.pathclinic.ca. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  29. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/ADS.htm. Accessed January 8, 2014.
  30. Mallery LH, Moorhouse P. Respecting frailty. J Med Ethics 2011; 37:126128.
  31. Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine: Continuing Medical Education. Issues in hypertension 2011. http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/files/Hypertension%20book.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2014.
  32. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311:507520.
  33. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289:25602572.
  34. Amery A, Birkenhäger W, Brixko P, et al. Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial. Lancet 1985; 1:13491354.
  35. Coope J, Warrender TS. Randomised trial of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients in primary care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293:11451151.
  36. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265:32553264.
  37. Dahlöf B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Scherstén B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338:12811285.
  38. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party. BMJ 1992; 304:405412.
  39. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997; 350:757764.
  40. Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16:18231829.
  41. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, et al; SCOPE Study Group. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21:875886.
  42. JATOS Study Group. Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertens Res 2008; 31:21152127.
  43. Oparil S, Yarows SA, Patel S, Fang H, Zhang J, Satlin A. Efficacy and safety of combined use of aliskiren and valsartan in patients with hypertension: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2007; 370:221229.
  44. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al; HYVET Study Group. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:18871898.
  45. Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;CD000028.
  46. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;CD004937.
  47. Allen M, Kelly K, Fleming I. Hypertension in elderly patients: recommended systolic targets are not evidence based [in French]. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59:1924.
  48. Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ 2012; 344:e3863.
  49. Sabayan B, Oleksik AM, Maier AB, et al. High blood pressure and resilience to physical and cognitive decline in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60:20142019.
  50. Sabayan B, van Vliet P, de Ruijter W, Gussekloo J, de Craen AJ, Westendorp RG. High blood pressure, physical and cognitive function, and risk of stroke in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Stroke 2013; 44:1520.
  51. Poortvliet RK, Blom JW, de Craen AJ, et al. Low blood pressure predicts increased mortality in very old age even without heart failure: the Leiden 85-plus Study. Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15:528533.
  52. Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE. Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:11621168.
  53. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358:10331041.
  54. Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, et al; PRoFESS Study Group. Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:12251237.
  55. Garfinkel D, Mangin D. Feasibility study of a systematic approach for discontinuation of multiple medications in older adults: addressing polypharmacy. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:16481654.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
427-437
Page Number
427-437
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Promoting higher blood pressure targets for frail older adults: A consensus guideline from Canada
Display Headline
Promoting higher blood pressure targets for frail older adults: A consensus guideline from Canada
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • For frail elderly patients, consider starting treatment if the systolic blood pressure is 160 mm Hg or higher.
  • An appropriate target in this population is a seated systolic pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg, as long as there is no orthostatic drop to less than 140 mm Hg upon standing from a lying position and treatment does not adversely affect quality of life.
  • The blood pressure target does not need to be lower if the patient has diabetes. If the patient is severely frail and has a short life expectancy, a systolic target of 160 to 190 mm Hg may be reasonable.
  • If the systolic pressure is below 140 mm Hg, antihypertensive medications can be reduced as long as they are not indicated for other conditions.
  • In general, one should prescribe no more than two antihypertensive medications.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: Many unanswered questions

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 13:50
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: Many unanswered questions

Your patient has had an ischemic stroke, and so far you have found no obvious cause such as atrial fibrillation or carotid disease. Should you look for a patent foramen ovale (PFO)? And if you find it, what should you do?

See related commentary

This scenario continues to challenge primary care physicians and subspecialists and requires an understanding of the relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, as well as familiarity with current data on the safety and effectiveness of the management options. PFO is known to be associated with cryptogenic stroke, but many questions remain, including:

  • How can we tell if PFO is a culprit (“pathologic”) or an innocent bystander (“incidental”) in a patient who has had a cryptogenic stroke?
  • Should stroke patients receive different medical therapy if they have a PFO? In particular, should they receive warfarin in addition to aspirin? And what about the novel oral anticoagulants?
  • Which patients should undergo percutaneous closure of the PFO?
  • Should we even be looking for PFO in stroke patients at this point, if we cannot say with certainty what we should do if we find it?

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Cerebrovascular disease is common and costly. The estimated yearly incidence of stroke in the United States is 795,000 events, at a cost of nearly $30 billion.1 The incidence of stroke in Europe is more than 1 million annually.2

During the diagnostic evaluation of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), PFO is occasionally discovered incidentally by echocardiography. The management decisions that follow often fall to the primary care physician, who must decipher the conflicting data currently available and explain the options to the patient.

Although reviews have been published on this subject,3 several newer key trials and data on risk stratification warrant consideration.

DEFINITIONS

Figure 1. Patent foramen ovale.

PFO is the failure of the septum primum to fuse with the septum secundum, so that a communication remains between the atria (Figure 1). The diagnosis is commonly made by echocardiography, when agitated saline is injected into the venous system and bubbles can be seen in the left atrium within three to five cardiac cycles (see video).

Atrial septal aneurysm is loosely defined as a septal excursion or bulging of at least 10 to 15 mm into the left and right atria during the cardiac cycle (Figure 2). The combination of PFO and atrial septal aneurysm may be more of a risk factor for stroke than PFO alone (see discussion below).

Figure 2. Atrial septal aneurysm.

Cryptogenic stroke. The diagnostic workup of stroke fails to elucidate a clear cause in up to 40% of cases, which are thus called cryptogenic.4 The workup varies, but typically includes a search for a cardioembolic source and for atherosclerotic disease. Embolic sources are evaluated for by electrocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, and possibly imaging of the aortic arch. Evaluation for atherosclerotic disease of the intracranial and extracranial arteries includes magnetic resonance angiography or, if that is unavailable, computed tomographic angiography or carotid Doppler ultrasonography. If no source is found, long-term cardiac monitoring may be used to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, which may be more common than previously thought.

PFO AND CRYPTOGENIC STROKE ARE COMMON

As noted, there are approximately 800,000 strokes every year in the United States. If 25% to 40% of them are cryptogenic (the true prevalence warrants more evaluation),4,5 then 200,000 to 320,000 strokes are cryptogenic.

Autopsy studies indicate that 25% of the general population have a PFO, and if the prevalence is the same in people with cryptogenic stroke, that would equal 80,000 people with both cryptogenic stroke and PFO every year. However, the prevalence of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke appears to be significantly higher than in the general population.6 Although these numbers are crude estimates, they provide some insight into the prevalence of this clinical presentation.

HOW ARE CRYPTOGENIC STROKE AND PFO RELATED?

The exact relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke is unknown, although cases have been reported of thrombus in transit through a PFO, supporting paradoxical embolism as the plausible cause in stroke patients with PFO.7–9

There is clear evidence that the two conditions are associated by more than chance. Homma and Sacco6 reported that, in several studies, 93 (46%) of 202 patients under age 55 with cryptogenic stroke had PFOs, compared with 29 (11%) of 271 controls (P < .05 in all studies).6

In their evaluation of 23 case-control studies, Alsheikh-Ali et al10 found that the summary odds ratio (OR) for PFO in cryptogenic stroke vs PFO in control patients was 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1–4), largely driven by an OR of 5.1 (3.3–7.8) in those under age 55. Through Bayesian probability theory, this correlated with only a 33% probability that PFO in a patient with cryptogenic stroke was an innocent bystander rather than the culprit.10

 

 

IS PFO A RISK FACTOR FOR STROKE?

One of the more puzzling aspects of the relationship of PFO to cryptogenic stroke is that despite a clear association, there is little evidence that the relationship is causal.

Di Tullio et al11 followed 1,100 people who had no history of stroke and found that the risk of a first stroke in those with a PFO was not significantly higher than in those without a PFO, regardless of age, sex, or ethnic or racial group. At 80 months, the hazard ratio of stroke in people who had a PFO was 1.64 (95% CI 0.87–3.09).11 The findings were similar at 11 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.64–1.91).12

A prospective study of 585 patients found a similar risk of stroke in those with and without a PFO, with a hazard ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 0.74–2.88; P = .28).13

These prospective trials suggest that although previous studies have found a higher prevalence of PFOs in patients with cryptogenic stroke than in patients without stroke, there appears to be very little if any increased risk from baseline for a first stroke or TIA.

The lack of statistical significance in these trials should be interpreted with some caution, as a small increased risk is difficult to show if the event rate is low (approximately 10% of patients had events over 11 years in the study by Di Tullio et al12).

HOW DO WE KNOW IF A PFO IS A CULPRIT OR BYSTANDER?

Unfortunately, this is largely unanswered, though experts have suggested that echocardiographic features of the PFO, radiographic characteristics of the stroke, and clinical features of the patient may provide useful information.

‘High-risk’ features on echocardiography

Certain features of PFO may portend a high risk of cerebrovascular events. Both right-to-left shunting at rest and septal hypermobility were found in one study14 to be more common in patients with a PFO who had a stroke or TIA than in patients with a PFO but no cerebrovascular events. Also, patients who had these features and had a stroke had a higher risk of recurrence than stroke patients without these features (12.5% vs 4.3%, P = .05).14

Septal hypermobility and shunting at rest are easily diagnosed by echocardiography, and detecting these “high-risk” features would be useful if they could identify patients who would benefit from special therapy, such as percutaneous closure of the PFO.

Unfortunately, when investigators looked at these features in subgroup analysis of the major randomized controlled trials of percutaneous closure vs medical therapy, the results were mixed.

CLOSURE 1 (the Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale)15 found percutaneous closure to be no better than medical therapy, regardless of shunt size or the presence of atrial septal aneurysm.

Similarly, the PC trial (Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder With Medical Treatment in Patients With Cryptogenic Embolism)16 found no statistically significant benefit of closure in those with atrial septal aneurysm.

In contrast, the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment)17 showed percutaneous closure to be beneficial in patients with atrial septal aneurysm or large shunt.

Radiographic characteristics of the stroke

Another area of interest in trying to identify culprit PFOs is the radiographic characteristics of the stroke.

In a study comparing patients with stroke related to atrial fibrillation vs patients with cryptogenic stroke and a known PFO, those in the latter group were more likely to have a single cortical infarction (34.2% vs 3.1%; P < .001) or multiple small scattered lesions (23.1% vs 5.9%; P < .01).18 Similarly, in a large database of patients with cryptogenic stroke and known PFO status, a superficially located stroke was associated with the presence of PFO (OR 1.54; P < .0001).19

Although these findings do not tell us with certainty that a patient’s PFO was the cause of his or her stroke, they provide guidance when dealing with the uncertainty of how to manage a patient with PFO. They may be useful in clinical practice, for example, when discussing treatment options with a young patient with cryptogenic stroke who has no risk factors and a superficial single infarct and who is found to have a PFO with a right-to-left shunting at rest.

Patient characteristics

Kent et al20 developed a 10-point index (the RoPE score) in an attempt to assign a probability to whether a stroke was PFO-related. Points were assigned for patients who were younger, who had a cortical stroke on neuroimaging, and who did not have diabetes, hypertension, smoking, or prior stroke or TIA. Patients with cryptogenic stroke with a higher RoPE score were more likely to have a PFO and thus had a higher likelihood that the index event was related to PFO. Of note, the patients with the highest likelihood of PFO-related stroke were the least likely to have a recurrence (RoPE score of 9 to 10; PFO-attributable fraction 88%; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 2%; 95% CI 0%–4%), whereas those with a low RoPE score have more traditional risk factors for stroke and thus are more likely to have a recurrence (RoPE 0 to 3; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 20%; 95% CI 12%–28%).20

Again, this sheds light on a difficulty faced by randomized controlled trials: the patients who may benefit from closure of a PFO may very well be those with the lowest recurrence rates without intervention.

The RoPE index was examined in an attempt to validate previously described morphologic criteria of “high-risk” PFO,21 though none of the previously described “high-risk” echocardiographic features (large physiologic size, hypermobile septum, shunt at rest) were more common in the group with presumed PFO-attributable stroke (RoPE score > 6). This underscores the difficulty of distinguishing pathologic PFO from incidental PFO.

 

 

KEY TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SECONDARY PREVENTION

Given the complicated relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, there has been much debate over management strategies. The three options are surgical closure, percutaneous closure with a device, and medical therapy. The goal of all three is to prevent the recurrence of stroke or TIA.

Surgical closure has largely been supplanted by percutaneous closure, but is still done in specific situations such as when a PFO is found incidentally on transesophageal echocardiography during surgery for another cardiac condition. The data on such cases22 tend to support the argument that asymptomatic PFOs in the general population have a relatively benign natural history.

Thus, the two key questions about management that warrant discussion are: is anticoagulation superior to antiplatelet therapy? And is percutaneous closure superior to medical management?

Anticoagulant vs antiplatelet therapy

Whether to treat with aspirin or with a vitamin K antagonist has been a subject of debate, although there is no strong evidence to suggest that anticoagulation is superior to antiplatelet therapy.

The concern that aspirin alone is insufficient in some patients stems from a study by Mas et al,23 who followed 581 patients with cryptogenic stroke who had a PFO alone, a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, or neither. The rate of stroke recurrence at 4 years on aspirin therapy was 2.3% in those with a PFO alone, 15.2% in those with a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, and 4.2% in those with neither.

Many have concluded that aspirin therapy does not sufficiently protect those with both PFO and atrial septal aneurysm, given the high recurrence rate in this group. This might lead to the suggestion that anticoagulation could be of benefit in these patients.

However, the Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PiCSS)24 and the Spanish Multicenter Study Into Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke (CODICIA)25 found similar recurrence rates in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm compared with those with only PFO. In these two studies, recurrence rates were similar regardless of whether patients were taking aspirin or warfarin.

In a study that followed 140 consecutive patients with both stroke and PFO, those treated in a nonrandomized fashion with antiplatelet agents had no difference in the recurrence rate compared with those treated with anticoagulation.26

Although uncertainty remains because no head-to-head randomized controlled trial has been done, some patients with PFO have other indications for anticoagulation, most commonly atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease.

There are currently no data on the use of novel oral anticoagulants in this setting.

Is percutaneous closure better than medical therapy?

When cryptogenic stroke is treated with antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation therapy, the recurrence rate is the same whether or not the patient has a PFO.23–25 The belief that medical therapy offers adequate secondary protection is supported by a meta-analysis of 15 studies that found no increased risk of recurrent ischemic events in those with a PFO on medical therapy (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) vs those without a PFO (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.8–1.5).27

Despite the conflicting evidence, percutaneous closure of PFO is still performed, mostly on a case-by-case basis. This has been supported by an apparent benefit in observational studies.

A systematic review of 52 single-arm studies and 7 comparative nonrandomized studies of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke found the rate of recurrent stroke to be 0.36 per 100 person-years with percutaneous closure vs 2.53 per 100 person-years with medical therapy.28 However, three long-awaited randomized controlled trials (CLOSURE 1, the PC trial, and RESPECT) failed to show a significant reduction in primary end points with percutaneous closure vs standard medical therapy.15–17

These trials had several limitations: event rates were low, medical therapy varied by provider, and enrollment was slowed by out-of-study percutaneous closure in patients perceived to be at high risk (though, as discussed above, high risk is difficult to determine).

Intention-to-treat analysis in RESPECT showed no benefit from percutaneous closure, but a favorable outcome was noted with closure in as-treated analysis (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.1–0.75; P = .007) and per-protocol analysis (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.14–0.96; P = .03) of the 980 randomized patients.17 This suggests some benefit, as does the CLOSURE 1 trial, in which 3 of the 12 recurrent strokes in the percutaneous closure group occurred before the device was implanted.15

The low event rates in these studies prompted several meta-analyses.29–35 However, only two suggested a benefit of percutaneous closure over medical therapy. In one recent meta-analysis,29 observational study data suggested benefit from percutaneous closure, whereas three randomized controlled trials failed to show a statistically significant benefit.

The conclusions of the meta-analyses must be interpreted with caution because of inherent differences in the randomized controlled trials, including the closure device used, inclusion criteria, study end points, and variations in medical therapy.

Devices differ

A meta-analysis by Khan et al35 showed a benefit of percutaneous closure when evaluating only studies using the Amplatzer PFO occluder (AGA Medical), as in RESPECT and the PC trial.35 As data accumulate, it is important to remember that there are differences between devices. Ongoing trials continue to investigate the Amplatzer device (NCT01550588) and the GORE HELEX Septal Occluder/GORE Septal Occluder (Gore Medical) (NCT00738894).

In another meta-analysis, Pineda et al31 found a benefit with closure in the as-treated analysis using data from all three randomized controlled trials (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.94; P = .02).31 Although paradoxical embolism through the PFO as the mechanism of stroke has been questioned, this finding suggests that actual closure of a PFO may protect against further events, presumably by preventing paradoxical embolism.

Different closure devices have different side effects. The incidence of atrial fibrillation with the CardioSEAL STARFlex device (NMT Medical) is higher than with medical therapy (used in the CLOSURE trial15), whereas this risk was not statistically significantly increased in the PC trial16 and RESPECT,17 which used the Amplatzer device.

Benefit in those with atrial septal aneurysm?

Percutaneous closure has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm.36 There was some benefit of closure over medical therapy in a subgroup analysis from RESPECT in these patients, with a HR of 0.19 (95% CI 0.04–0.87, P = .02),17 although this was not seen in either CLOSURE 1 or the PC trial.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE?

Minor complications of percutaneous closure include bleeding, atrial arrhythmias, device embolization and fracture, and complications related to vascular access. Major complications include hemorrhage requiring transfusion, need for surgery, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, and death.

The cumulative rate of major complications in 10 observational studies was 1.5%, and the rate of minor complications was 7.9%.37 The RESPECT investigators reported a serious adverse event in 4.2% of patients (ranging in severity from chest tightness to cardiac tamponade).17

Another possible consequence of percutaneous closure is the need for chronic anticoagulation because of the increased risk of postprocedural atrial fibrillation seen in meta-analyses,29,31,32 though this may be device-specific.32

Percutaneous closure was considered successful—ie, to have nearly or completely eliminated shunting of blood through the defect—at 6 months of follow-up in 95.9% of patients in the PC trial, 93.5% in RESPECT, and 86.1% in CLOSURE 1.15–17

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Give aspirin. Aspirin is effective in secondary stroke prevention, and data suggest that patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke who receive aspirin therapy alone have a similar risk of recurrent events as patients without PFO.

Give warfarin if indicated. Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin K antagonist therapy in all patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. However, coexisting conditions that warrant anticoagulation must be taken into account.

Individualize. Given the lack of evidence to definitively guide management of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, we need to individualize our approach, taking into account patient preferences, bleeding risk, ability to tolerate procedures, and the likelihood that the PFO is at fault.

No definitive answer on PFO closure. The most recent data suggest that closure may be beneficial, but key questions remain: Who will benefit? And what is the ideal medical therapy? Optimal management will only be established by the continued enrollment of appropriate patients into ongoing clinical trials.

Another question is whether it is possible to perform a randomized controlled trial with enough patients to definitively prove whether percutaneous closure is superior to medical therapy. Recent experience would suggest not.

In the meantime, we have some guidance from the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association Council on Stroke38 based on the limited evidence available.

Consider patient preference. The physician should present the options to the patient in a balanced manner to enable him or her to make an informed decision. Patients can also be encouraged to seek additional information at websites such as www.stroke.org and www.nlm.nih.gov.

Referral to an interventional cardiologist for evaluation for closure is reasonable in patients with recurrent stroke, medication failure, complicated atrial septal anatomy such as PFO with aneurysm or large shunt, concurrent thromboembolic disease, or contraindications to anticoagulation.

MORE WORK NEEDED

Areas for further study include further identifying the characteristics of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke that might indicate who would benefit from percutaneous closure, elucidating the mechanism of stroke in these patients, and determining whether routine stroke evaluation should include echocardiography with a bubble study if there is no change in management based on the finding of PFO.39

References
  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 125:e2e220.
  2. Truelsen T, Piechowski-JóŸwiak B, Bonita R, Mathers C, Bogousslavsky J, Boysen G. Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: a review of available data. Eur J Neurol 2006; 13:581598.
  3. Furlan AJ. Patent foramen ovale and stroke: to close or not to close? Cleve Clin J Med 2007; 74(suppl 1):S118S120.
  4. Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, et al. Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank. Ann Neurol 1989; 25:382390.
  5. Grau AJ, Weimar C, Buggle F, et al. Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in subtypes of ischemic stroke: the German stroke data bank. Stroke 2001; 32:25592566.
  6. Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation 2005; 112:10631072.
  7. Sattiraju S, Masri SC, Liao K, Missov E. Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography of a thrombus entrapped by a patent foramen ovale. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94:e101e102.
  8. Schreiter SW, Phillips JH. Thromboembolus traversing a patent foramen ovale: resolution with anticoagulation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1994; 7:659662.
  9. Hust MH, Staiger M, Braun B. Migration of paradoxic embolus through a patent foramen ovale diagnosed by echocardiography: successful thrombolysis. Am Heart J 1995; 129:620622.
  10. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: incidental or pathogenic? Stroke 2009; 40:23492355.
  11. Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Jin Z, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:797802.
  12. Di Tullio MR, Jin Z, Russo C, et al. Patent foramen ovale, subclinical cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:3541.
  13. Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:440445.
  14. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000; 31:24072413.
  15. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE I Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  16. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
  17. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  18. Kim BJ, Sohn H, Sun BJ, et al. Imaging characteristics of ischemic strokes related to patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:33503356.
  19. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:675680.
  20. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619625.
  21. Wessler BS, Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography in cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: analysis of putative high-risk features from the risk of paradoxical embolism database. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7:125131.
  22. Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA 2009; 302:290297.
  23. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al; Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurysm Study Group. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:17401746.
  24. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP; PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) Investigators. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:26252631.
  25. Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, et al; CODICIA, Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke Study; Stroke Project of the Cerebrovascular Diseases Study Group, Spanish Society of Neurology. Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008; 39:31313136.
  26. Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N, Van Melle G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996; 46:13011305.
  27. Almekhlafi MA, Wilton SB, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Lorenzetti DL, Hill MD. Recurrent cerebral ischemia in medically treated patent foramen ovale: a meta-analysis. Neurology 2009; 73:8997.
  28. Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Abu Dabrh AM, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale closure and medical treatments for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review of observational and randomized evidence. Stroke 2012; 43:422431.
  29. Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2014; 100:389395.
  30. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, Witzke CF, Morris DL, Romero-Corral A. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:33423352.
  31. Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, Kirtane AJ, Sommer RJ, Beohar N. A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82:968975.
  32. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:41324148.
  33. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P. PFO closure vs medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 169:101105.
  34. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Burgess D, Denniss AR. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ 2013; 22:903909.
  35. Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:13161323.
  36. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:377380.
  37. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  38. Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 2006; 37:577617.
  39. Rana BS, Thomas MR, Calvert PA, Monaghan MJ, Hildick-Smith D. Echocardiographic evaluation of patent foramen ovale prior to device closure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3:749760.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Christopher Roth, MD
Instructor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Oluseun Alli, MD
Assistant Professor, Director of Structural Heart Program, Section of Interventional Cardiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address: Christopher Roth, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Avenue South, BDB 321, Birmingham, AL 35294-0012; e-mail: Roth007@uab.edu

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
417-424
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Christopher Roth, MD
Instructor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Oluseun Alli, MD
Assistant Professor, Director of Structural Heart Program, Section of Interventional Cardiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address: Christopher Roth, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Avenue South, BDB 321, Birmingham, AL 35294-0012; e-mail: Roth007@uab.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Christopher Roth, MD
Instructor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Oluseun Alli, MD
Assistant Professor, Director of Structural Heart Program, Section of Interventional Cardiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address: Christopher Roth, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Avenue South, BDB 321, Birmingham, AL 35294-0012; e-mail: Roth007@uab.edu

Article PDF
Article PDF

Your patient has had an ischemic stroke, and so far you have found no obvious cause such as atrial fibrillation or carotid disease. Should you look for a patent foramen ovale (PFO)? And if you find it, what should you do?

See related commentary

This scenario continues to challenge primary care physicians and subspecialists and requires an understanding of the relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, as well as familiarity with current data on the safety and effectiveness of the management options. PFO is known to be associated with cryptogenic stroke, but many questions remain, including:

  • How can we tell if PFO is a culprit (“pathologic”) or an innocent bystander (“incidental”) in a patient who has had a cryptogenic stroke?
  • Should stroke patients receive different medical therapy if they have a PFO? In particular, should they receive warfarin in addition to aspirin? And what about the novel oral anticoagulants?
  • Which patients should undergo percutaneous closure of the PFO?
  • Should we even be looking for PFO in stroke patients at this point, if we cannot say with certainty what we should do if we find it?

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Cerebrovascular disease is common and costly. The estimated yearly incidence of stroke in the United States is 795,000 events, at a cost of nearly $30 billion.1 The incidence of stroke in Europe is more than 1 million annually.2

During the diagnostic evaluation of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), PFO is occasionally discovered incidentally by echocardiography. The management decisions that follow often fall to the primary care physician, who must decipher the conflicting data currently available and explain the options to the patient.

Although reviews have been published on this subject,3 several newer key trials and data on risk stratification warrant consideration.

DEFINITIONS

Figure 1. Patent foramen ovale.

PFO is the failure of the septum primum to fuse with the septum secundum, so that a communication remains between the atria (Figure 1). The diagnosis is commonly made by echocardiography, when agitated saline is injected into the venous system and bubbles can be seen in the left atrium within three to five cardiac cycles (see video).

Atrial septal aneurysm is loosely defined as a septal excursion or bulging of at least 10 to 15 mm into the left and right atria during the cardiac cycle (Figure 2). The combination of PFO and atrial septal aneurysm may be more of a risk factor for stroke than PFO alone (see discussion below).

Figure 2. Atrial septal aneurysm.

Cryptogenic stroke. The diagnostic workup of stroke fails to elucidate a clear cause in up to 40% of cases, which are thus called cryptogenic.4 The workup varies, but typically includes a search for a cardioembolic source and for atherosclerotic disease. Embolic sources are evaluated for by electrocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, and possibly imaging of the aortic arch. Evaluation for atherosclerotic disease of the intracranial and extracranial arteries includes magnetic resonance angiography or, if that is unavailable, computed tomographic angiography or carotid Doppler ultrasonography. If no source is found, long-term cardiac monitoring may be used to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, which may be more common than previously thought.

PFO AND CRYPTOGENIC STROKE ARE COMMON

As noted, there are approximately 800,000 strokes every year in the United States. If 25% to 40% of them are cryptogenic (the true prevalence warrants more evaluation),4,5 then 200,000 to 320,000 strokes are cryptogenic.

Autopsy studies indicate that 25% of the general population have a PFO, and if the prevalence is the same in people with cryptogenic stroke, that would equal 80,000 people with both cryptogenic stroke and PFO every year. However, the prevalence of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke appears to be significantly higher than in the general population.6 Although these numbers are crude estimates, they provide some insight into the prevalence of this clinical presentation.

HOW ARE CRYPTOGENIC STROKE AND PFO RELATED?

The exact relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke is unknown, although cases have been reported of thrombus in transit through a PFO, supporting paradoxical embolism as the plausible cause in stroke patients with PFO.7–9

There is clear evidence that the two conditions are associated by more than chance. Homma and Sacco6 reported that, in several studies, 93 (46%) of 202 patients under age 55 with cryptogenic stroke had PFOs, compared with 29 (11%) of 271 controls (P < .05 in all studies).6

In their evaluation of 23 case-control studies, Alsheikh-Ali et al10 found that the summary odds ratio (OR) for PFO in cryptogenic stroke vs PFO in control patients was 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1–4), largely driven by an OR of 5.1 (3.3–7.8) in those under age 55. Through Bayesian probability theory, this correlated with only a 33% probability that PFO in a patient with cryptogenic stroke was an innocent bystander rather than the culprit.10

 

 

IS PFO A RISK FACTOR FOR STROKE?

One of the more puzzling aspects of the relationship of PFO to cryptogenic stroke is that despite a clear association, there is little evidence that the relationship is causal.

Di Tullio et al11 followed 1,100 people who had no history of stroke and found that the risk of a first stroke in those with a PFO was not significantly higher than in those without a PFO, regardless of age, sex, or ethnic or racial group. At 80 months, the hazard ratio of stroke in people who had a PFO was 1.64 (95% CI 0.87–3.09).11 The findings were similar at 11 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.64–1.91).12

A prospective study of 585 patients found a similar risk of stroke in those with and without a PFO, with a hazard ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 0.74–2.88; P = .28).13

These prospective trials suggest that although previous studies have found a higher prevalence of PFOs in patients with cryptogenic stroke than in patients without stroke, there appears to be very little if any increased risk from baseline for a first stroke or TIA.

The lack of statistical significance in these trials should be interpreted with some caution, as a small increased risk is difficult to show if the event rate is low (approximately 10% of patients had events over 11 years in the study by Di Tullio et al12).

HOW DO WE KNOW IF A PFO IS A CULPRIT OR BYSTANDER?

Unfortunately, this is largely unanswered, though experts have suggested that echocardiographic features of the PFO, radiographic characteristics of the stroke, and clinical features of the patient may provide useful information.

‘High-risk’ features on echocardiography

Certain features of PFO may portend a high risk of cerebrovascular events. Both right-to-left shunting at rest and septal hypermobility were found in one study14 to be more common in patients with a PFO who had a stroke or TIA than in patients with a PFO but no cerebrovascular events. Also, patients who had these features and had a stroke had a higher risk of recurrence than stroke patients without these features (12.5% vs 4.3%, P = .05).14

Septal hypermobility and shunting at rest are easily diagnosed by echocardiography, and detecting these “high-risk” features would be useful if they could identify patients who would benefit from special therapy, such as percutaneous closure of the PFO.

Unfortunately, when investigators looked at these features in subgroup analysis of the major randomized controlled trials of percutaneous closure vs medical therapy, the results were mixed.

CLOSURE 1 (the Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale)15 found percutaneous closure to be no better than medical therapy, regardless of shunt size or the presence of atrial septal aneurysm.

Similarly, the PC trial (Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder With Medical Treatment in Patients With Cryptogenic Embolism)16 found no statistically significant benefit of closure in those with atrial septal aneurysm.

In contrast, the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment)17 showed percutaneous closure to be beneficial in patients with atrial septal aneurysm or large shunt.

Radiographic characteristics of the stroke

Another area of interest in trying to identify culprit PFOs is the radiographic characteristics of the stroke.

In a study comparing patients with stroke related to atrial fibrillation vs patients with cryptogenic stroke and a known PFO, those in the latter group were more likely to have a single cortical infarction (34.2% vs 3.1%; P < .001) or multiple small scattered lesions (23.1% vs 5.9%; P < .01).18 Similarly, in a large database of patients with cryptogenic stroke and known PFO status, a superficially located stroke was associated with the presence of PFO (OR 1.54; P < .0001).19

Although these findings do not tell us with certainty that a patient’s PFO was the cause of his or her stroke, they provide guidance when dealing with the uncertainty of how to manage a patient with PFO. They may be useful in clinical practice, for example, when discussing treatment options with a young patient with cryptogenic stroke who has no risk factors and a superficial single infarct and who is found to have a PFO with a right-to-left shunting at rest.

Patient characteristics

Kent et al20 developed a 10-point index (the RoPE score) in an attempt to assign a probability to whether a stroke was PFO-related. Points were assigned for patients who were younger, who had a cortical stroke on neuroimaging, and who did not have diabetes, hypertension, smoking, or prior stroke or TIA. Patients with cryptogenic stroke with a higher RoPE score were more likely to have a PFO and thus had a higher likelihood that the index event was related to PFO. Of note, the patients with the highest likelihood of PFO-related stroke were the least likely to have a recurrence (RoPE score of 9 to 10; PFO-attributable fraction 88%; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 2%; 95% CI 0%–4%), whereas those with a low RoPE score have more traditional risk factors for stroke and thus are more likely to have a recurrence (RoPE 0 to 3; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 20%; 95% CI 12%–28%).20

Again, this sheds light on a difficulty faced by randomized controlled trials: the patients who may benefit from closure of a PFO may very well be those with the lowest recurrence rates without intervention.

The RoPE index was examined in an attempt to validate previously described morphologic criteria of “high-risk” PFO,21 though none of the previously described “high-risk” echocardiographic features (large physiologic size, hypermobile septum, shunt at rest) were more common in the group with presumed PFO-attributable stroke (RoPE score > 6). This underscores the difficulty of distinguishing pathologic PFO from incidental PFO.

 

 

KEY TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SECONDARY PREVENTION

Given the complicated relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, there has been much debate over management strategies. The three options are surgical closure, percutaneous closure with a device, and medical therapy. The goal of all three is to prevent the recurrence of stroke or TIA.

Surgical closure has largely been supplanted by percutaneous closure, but is still done in specific situations such as when a PFO is found incidentally on transesophageal echocardiography during surgery for another cardiac condition. The data on such cases22 tend to support the argument that asymptomatic PFOs in the general population have a relatively benign natural history.

Thus, the two key questions about management that warrant discussion are: is anticoagulation superior to antiplatelet therapy? And is percutaneous closure superior to medical management?

Anticoagulant vs antiplatelet therapy

Whether to treat with aspirin or with a vitamin K antagonist has been a subject of debate, although there is no strong evidence to suggest that anticoagulation is superior to antiplatelet therapy.

The concern that aspirin alone is insufficient in some patients stems from a study by Mas et al,23 who followed 581 patients with cryptogenic stroke who had a PFO alone, a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, or neither. The rate of stroke recurrence at 4 years on aspirin therapy was 2.3% in those with a PFO alone, 15.2% in those with a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, and 4.2% in those with neither.

Many have concluded that aspirin therapy does not sufficiently protect those with both PFO and atrial septal aneurysm, given the high recurrence rate in this group. This might lead to the suggestion that anticoagulation could be of benefit in these patients.

However, the Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PiCSS)24 and the Spanish Multicenter Study Into Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke (CODICIA)25 found similar recurrence rates in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm compared with those with only PFO. In these two studies, recurrence rates were similar regardless of whether patients were taking aspirin or warfarin.

In a study that followed 140 consecutive patients with both stroke and PFO, those treated in a nonrandomized fashion with antiplatelet agents had no difference in the recurrence rate compared with those treated with anticoagulation.26

Although uncertainty remains because no head-to-head randomized controlled trial has been done, some patients with PFO have other indications for anticoagulation, most commonly atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease.

There are currently no data on the use of novel oral anticoagulants in this setting.

Is percutaneous closure better than medical therapy?

When cryptogenic stroke is treated with antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation therapy, the recurrence rate is the same whether or not the patient has a PFO.23–25 The belief that medical therapy offers adequate secondary protection is supported by a meta-analysis of 15 studies that found no increased risk of recurrent ischemic events in those with a PFO on medical therapy (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) vs those without a PFO (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.8–1.5).27

Despite the conflicting evidence, percutaneous closure of PFO is still performed, mostly on a case-by-case basis. This has been supported by an apparent benefit in observational studies.

A systematic review of 52 single-arm studies and 7 comparative nonrandomized studies of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke found the rate of recurrent stroke to be 0.36 per 100 person-years with percutaneous closure vs 2.53 per 100 person-years with medical therapy.28 However, three long-awaited randomized controlled trials (CLOSURE 1, the PC trial, and RESPECT) failed to show a significant reduction in primary end points with percutaneous closure vs standard medical therapy.15–17

These trials had several limitations: event rates were low, medical therapy varied by provider, and enrollment was slowed by out-of-study percutaneous closure in patients perceived to be at high risk (though, as discussed above, high risk is difficult to determine).

Intention-to-treat analysis in RESPECT showed no benefit from percutaneous closure, but a favorable outcome was noted with closure in as-treated analysis (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.1–0.75; P = .007) and per-protocol analysis (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.14–0.96; P = .03) of the 980 randomized patients.17 This suggests some benefit, as does the CLOSURE 1 trial, in which 3 of the 12 recurrent strokes in the percutaneous closure group occurred before the device was implanted.15

The low event rates in these studies prompted several meta-analyses.29–35 However, only two suggested a benefit of percutaneous closure over medical therapy. In one recent meta-analysis,29 observational study data suggested benefit from percutaneous closure, whereas three randomized controlled trials failed to show a statistically significant benefit.

The conclusions of the meta-analyses must be interpreted with caution because of inherent differences in the randomized controlled trials, including the closure device used, inclusion criteria, study end points, and variations in medical therapy.

Devices differ

A meta-analysis by Khan et al35 showed a benefit of percutaneous closure when evaluating only studies using the Amplatzer PFO occluder (AGA Medical), as in RESPECT and the PC trial.35 As data accumulate, it is important to remember that there are differences between devices. Ongoing trials continue to investigate the Amplatzer device (NCT01550588) and the GORE HELEX Septal Occluder/GORE Septal Occluder (Gore Medical) (NCT00738894).

In another meta-analysis, Pineda et al31 found a benefit with closure in the as-treated analysis using data from all three randomized controlled trials (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.94; P = .02).31 Although paradoxical embolism through the PFO as the mechanism of stroke has been questioned, this finding suggests that actual closure of a PFO may protect against further events, presumably by preventing paradoxical embolism.

Different closure devices have different side effects. The incidence of atrial fibrillation with the CardioSEAL STARFlex device (NMT Medical) is higher than with medical therapy (used in the CLOSURE trial15), whereas this risk was not statistically significantly increased in the PC trial16 and RESPECT,17 which used the Amplatzer device.

Benefit in those with atrial septal aneurysm?

Percutaneous closure has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm.36 There was some benefit of closure over medical therapy in a subgroup analysis from RESPECT in these patients, with a HR of 0.19 (95% CI 0.04–0.87, P = .02),17 although this was not seen in either CLOSURE 1 or the PC trial.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE?

Minor complications of percutaneous closure include bleeding, atrial arrhythmias, device embolization and fracture, and complications related to vascular access. Major complications include hemorrhage requiring transfusion, need for surgery, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, and death.

The cumulative rate of major complications in 10 observational studies was 1.5%, and the rate of minor complications was 7.9%.37 The RESPECT investigators reported a serious adverse event in 4.2% of patients (ranging in severity from chest tightness to cardiac tamponade).17

Another possible consequence of percutaneous closure is the need for chronic anticoagulation because of the increased risk of postprocedural atrial fibrillation seen in meta-analyses,29,31,32 though this may be device-specific.32

Percutaneous closure was considered successful—ie, to have nearly or completely eliminated shunting of blood through the defect—at 6 months of follow-up in 95.9% of patients in the PC trial, 93.5% in RESPECT, and 86.1% in CLOSURE 1.15–17

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Give aspirin. Aspirin is effective in secondary stroke prevention, and data suggest that patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke who receive aspirin therapy alone have a similar risk of recurrent events as patients without PFO.

Give warfarin if indicated. Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin K antagonist therapy in all patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. However, coexisting conditions that warrant anticoagulation must be taken into account.

Individualize. Given the lack of evidence to definitively guide management of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, we need to individualize our approach, taking into account patient preferences, bleeding risk, ability to tolerate procedures, and the likelihood that the PFO is at fault.

No definitive answer on PFO closure. The most recent data suggest that closure may be beneficial, but key questions remain: Who will benefit? And what is the ideal medical therapy? Optimal management will only be established by the continued enrollment of appropriate patients into ongoing clinical trials.

Another question is whether it is possible to perform a randomized controlled trial with enough patients to definitively prove whether percutaneous closure is superior to medical therapy. Recent experience would suggest not.

In the meantime, we have some guidance from the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association Council on Stroke38 based on the limited evidence available.

Consider patient preference. The physician should present the options to the patient in a balanced manner to enable him or her to make an informed decision. Patients can also be encouraged to seek additional information at websites such as www.stroke.org and www.nlm.nih.gov.

Referral to an interventional cardiologist for evaluation for closure is reasonable in patients with recurrent stroke, medication failure, complicated atrial septal anatomy such as PFO with aneurysm or large shunt, concurrent thromboembolic disease, or contraindications to anticoagulation.

MORE WORK NEEDED

Areas for further study include further identifying the characteristics of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke that might indicate who would benefit from percutaneous closure, elucidating the mechanism of stroke in these patients, and determining whether routine stroke evaluation should include echocardiography with a bubble study if there is no change in management based on the finding of PFO.39

Your patient has had an ischemic stroke, and so far you have found no obvious cause such as atrial fibrillation or carotid disease. Should you look for a patent foramen ovale (PFO)? And if you find it, what should you do?

See related commentary

This scenario continues to challenge primary care physicians and subspecialists and requires an understanding of the relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, as well as familiarity with current data on the safety and effectiveness of the management options. PFO is known to be associated with cryptogenic stroke, but many questions remain, including:

  • How can we tell if PFO is a culprit (“pathologic”) or an innocent bystander (“incidental”) in a patient who has had a cryptogenic stroke?
  • Should stroke patients receive different medical therapy if they have a PFO? In particular, should they receive warfarin in addition to aspirin? And what about the novel oral anticoagulants?
  • Which patients should undergo percutaneous closure of the PFO?
  • Should we even be looking for PFO in stroke patients at this point, if we cannot say with certainty what we should do if we find it?

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Cerebrovascular disease is common and costly. The estimated yearly incidence of stroke in the United States is 795,000 events, at a cost of nearly $30 billion.1 The incidence of stroke in Europe is more than 1 million annually.2

During the diagnostic evaluation of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), PFO is occasionally discovered incidentally by echocardiography. The management decisions that follow often fall to the primary care physician, who must decipher the conflicting data currently available and explain the options to the patient.

Although reviews have been published on this subject,3 several newer key trials and data on risk stratification warrant consideration.

DEFINITIONS

Figure 1. Patent foramen ovale.

PFO is the failure of the septum primum to fuse with the septum secundum, so that a communication remains between the atria (Figure 1). The diagnosis is commonly made by echocardiography, when agitated saline is injected into the venous system and bubbles can be seen in the left atrium within three to five cardiac cycles (see video).

Atrial septal aneurysm is loosely defined as a septal excursion or bulging of at least 10 to 15 mm into the left and right atria during the cardiac cycle (Figure 2). The combination of PFO and atrial septal aneurysm may be more of a risk factor for stroke than PFO alone (see discussion below).

Figure 2. Atrial septal aneurysm.

Cryptogenic stroke. The diagnostic workup of stroke fails to elucidate a clear cause in up to 40% of cases, which are thus called cryptogenic.4 The workup varies, but typically includes a search for a cardioembolic source and for atherosclerotic disease. Embolic sources are evaluated for by electrocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, and possibly imaging of the aortic arch. Evaluation for atherosclerotic disease of the intracranial and extracranial arteries includes magnetic resonance angiography or, if that is unavailable, computed tomographic angiography or carotid Doppler ultrasonography. If no source is found, long-term cardiac monitoring may be used to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, which may be more common than previously thought.

PFO AND CRYPTOGENIC STROKE ARE COMMON

As noted, there are approximately 800,000 strokes every year in the United States. If 25% to 40% of them are cryptogenic (the true prevalence warrants more evaluation),4,5 then 200,000 to 320,000 strokes are cryptogenic.

Autopsy studies indicate that 25% of the general population have a PFO, and if the prevalence is the same in people with cryptogenic stroke, that would equal 80,000 people with both cryptogenic stroke and PFO every year. However, the prevalence of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke appears to be significantly higher than in the general population.6 Although these numbers are crude estimates, they provide some insight into the prevalence of this clinical presentation.

HOW ARE CRYPTOGENIC STROKE AND PFO RELATED?

The exact relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke is unknown, although cases have been reported of thrombus in transit through a PFO, supporting paradoxical embolism as the plausible cause in stroke patients with PFO.7–9

There is clear evidence that the two conditions are associated by more than chance. Homma and Sacco6 reported that, in several studies, 93 (46%) of 202 patients under age 55 with cryptogenic stroke had PFOs, compared with 29 (11%) of 271 controls (P < .05 in all studies).6

In their evaluation of 23 case-control studies, Alsheikh-Ali et al10 found that the summary odds ratio (OR) for PFO in cryptogenic stroke vs PFO in control patients was 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1–4), largely driven by an OR of 5.1 (3.3–7.8) in those under age 55. Through Bayesian probability theory, this correlated with only a 33% probability that PFO in a patient with cryptogenic stroke was an innocent bystander rather than the culprit.10

 

 

IS PFO A RISK FACTOR FOR STROKE?

One of the more puzzling aspects of the relationship of PFO to cryptogenic stroke is that despite a clear association, there is little evidence that the relationship is causal.

Di Tullio et al11 followed 1,100 people who had no history of stroke and found that the risk of a first stroke in those with a PFO was not significantly higher than in those without a PFO, regardless of age, sex, or ethnic or racial group. At 80 months, the hazard ratio of stroke in people who had a PFO was 1.64 (95% CI 0.87–3.09).11 The findings were similar at 11 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.64–1.91).12

A prospective study of 585 patients found a similar risk of stroke in those with and without a PFO, with a hazard ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 0.74–2.88; P = .28).13

These prospective trials suggest that although previous studies have found a higher prevalence of PFOs in patients with cryptogenic stroke than in patients without stroke, there appears to be very little if any increased risk from baseline for a first stroke or TIA.

The lack of statistical significance in these trials should be interpreted with some caution, as a small increased risk is difficult to show if the event rate is low (approximately 10% of patients had events over 11 years in the study by Di Tullio et al12).

HOW DO WE KNOW IF A PFO IS A CULPRIT OR BYSTANDER?

Unfortunately, this is largely unanswered, though experts have suggested that echocardiographic features of the PFO, radiographic characteristics of the stroke, and clinical features of the patient may provide useful information.

‘High-risk’ features on echocardiography

Certain features of PFO may portend a high risk of cerebrovascular events. Both right-to-left shunting at rest and septal hypermobility were found in one study14 to be more common in patients with a PFO who had a stroke or TIA than in patients with a PFO but no cerebrovascular events. Also, patients who had these features and had a stroke had a higher risk of recurrence than stroke patients without these features (12.5% vs 4.3%, P = .05).14

Septal hypermobility and shunting at rest are easily diagnosed by echocardiography, and detecting these “high-risk” features would be useful if they could identify patients who would benefit from special therapy, such as percutaneous closure of the PFO.

Unfortunately, when investigators looked at these features in subgroup analysis of the major randomized controlled trials of percutaneous closure vs medical therapy, the results were mixed.

CLOSURE 1 (the Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale)15 found percutaneous closure to be no better than medical therapy, regardless of shunt size or the presence of atrial septal aneurysm.

Similarly, the PC trial (Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder With Medical Treatment in Patients With Cryptogenic Embolism)16 found no statistically significant benefit of closure in those with atrial septal aneurysm.

In contrast, the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment)17 showed percutaneous closure to be beneficial in patients with atrial septal aneurysm or large shunt.

Radiographic characteristics of the stroke

Another area of interest in trying to identify culprit PFOs is the radiographic characteristics of the stroke.

In a study comparing patients with stroke related to atrial fibrillation vs patients with cryptogenic stroke and a known PFO, those in the latter group were more likely to have a single cortical infarction (34.2% vs 3.1%; P < .001) or multiple small scattered lesions (23.1% vs 5.9%; P < .01).18 Similarly, in a large database of patients with cryptogenic stroke and known PFO status, a superficially located stroke was associated with the presence of PFO (OR 1.54; P < .0001).19

Although these findings do not tell us with certainty that a patient’s PFO was the cause of his or her stroke, they provide guidance when dealing with the uncertainty of how to manage a patient with PFO. They may be useful in clinical practice, for example, when discussing treatment options with a young patient with cryptogenic stroke who has no risk factors and a superficial single infarct and who is found to have a PFO with a right-to-left shunting at rest.

Patient characteristics

Kent et al20 developed a 10-point index (the RoPE score) in an attempt to assign a probability to whether a stroke was PFO-related. Points were assigned for patients who were younger, who had a cortical stroke on neuroimaging, and who did not have diabetes, hypertension, smoking, or prior stroke or TIA. Patients with cryptogenic stroke with a higher RoPE score were more likely to have a PFO and thus had a higher likelihood that the index event was related to PFO. Of note, the patients with the highest likelihood of PFO-related stroke were the least likely to have a recurrence (RoPE score of 9 to 10; PFO-attributable fraction 88%; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 2%; 95% CI 0%–4%), whereas those with a low RoPE score have more traditional risk factors for stroke and thus are more likely to have a recurrence (RoPE 0 to 3; estimated 2-year recurrence rate 20%; 95% CI 12%–28%).20

Again, this sheds light on a difficulty faced by randomized controlled trials: the patients who may benefit from closure of a PFO may very well be those with the lowest recurrence rates without intervention.

The RoPE index was examined in an attempt to validate previously described morphologic criteria of “high-risk” PFO,21 though none of the previously described “high-risk” echocardiographic features (large physiologic size, hypermobile septum, shunt at rest) were more common in the group with presumed PFO-attributable stroke (RoPE score > 6). This underscores the difficulty of distinguishing pathologic PFO from incidental PFO.

 

 

KEY TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SECONDARY PREVENTION

Given the complicated relationship between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, there has been much debate over management strategies. The three options are surgical closure, percutaneous closure with a device, and medical therapy. The goal of all three is to prevent the recurrence of stroke or TIA.

Surgical closure has largely been supplanted by percutaneous closure, but is still done in specific situations such as when a PFO is found incidentally on transesophageal echocardiography during surgery for another cardiac condition. The data on such cases22 tend to support the argument that asymptomatic PFOs in the general population have a relatively benign natural history.

Thus, the two key questions about management that warrant discussion are: is anticoagulation superior to antiplatelet therapy? And is percutaneous closure superior to medical management?

Anticoagulant vs antiplatelet therapy

Whether to treat with aspirin or with a vitamin K antagonist has been a subject of debate, although there is no strong evidence to suggest that anticoagulation is superior to antiplatelet therapy.

The concern that aspirin alone is insufficient in some patients stems from a study by Mas et al,23 who followed 581 patients with cryptogenic stroke who had a PFO alone, a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, or neither. The rate of stroke recurrence at 4 years on aspirin therapy was 2.3% in those with a PFO alone, 15.2% in those with a PFO with an atrial septal aneurysm, and 4.2% in those with neither.

Many have concluded that aspirin therapy does not sufficiently protect those with both PFO and atrial septal aneurysm, given the high recurrence rate in this group. This might lead to the suggestion that anticoagulation could be of benefit in these patients.

However, the Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PiCSS)24 and the Spanish Multicenter Study Into Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke (CODICIA)25 found similar recurrence rates in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm compared with those with only PFO. In these two studies, recurrence rates were similar regardless of whether patients were taking aspirin or warfarin.

In a study that followed 140 consecutive patients with both stroke and PFO, those treated in a nonrandomized fashion with antiplatelet agents had no difference in the recurrence rate compared with those treated with anticoagulation.26

Although uncertainty remains because no head-to-head randomized controlled trial has been done, some patients with PFO have other indications for anticoagulation, most commonly atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease.

There are currently no data on the use of novel oral anticoagulants in this setting.

Is percutaneous closure better than medical therapy?

When cryptogenic stroke is treated with antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation therapy, the recurrence rate is the same whether or not the patient has a PFO.23–25 The belief that medical therapy offers adequate secondary protection is supported by a meta-analysis of 15 studies that found no increased risk of recurrent ischemic events in those with a PFO on medical therapy (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) vs those without a PFO (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.8–1.5).27

Despite the conflicting evidence, percutaneous closure of PFO is still performed, mostly on a case-by-case basis. This has been supported by an apparent benefit in observational studies.

A systematic review of 52 single-arm studies and 7 comparative nonrandomized studies of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke found the rate of recurrent stroke to be 0.36 per 100 person-years with percutaneous closure vs 2.53 per 100 person-years with medical therapy.28 However, three long-awaited randomized controlled trials (CLOSURE 1, the PC trial, and RESPECT) failed to show a significant reduction in primary end points with percutaneous closure vs standard medical therapy.15–17

These trials had several limitations: event rates were low, medical therapy varied by provider, and enrollment was slowed by out-of-study percutaneous closure in patients perceived to be at high risk (though, as discussed above, high risk is difficult to determine).

Intention-to-treat analysis in RESPECT showed no benefit from percutaneous closure, but a favorable outcome was noted with closure in as-treated analysis (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.1–0.75; P = .007) and per-protocol analysis (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.14–0.96; P = .03) of the 980 randomized patients.17 This suggests some benefit, as does the CLOSURE 1 trial, in which 3 of the 12 recurrent strokes in the percutaneous closure group occurred before the device was implanted.15

The low event rates in these studies prompted several meta-analyses.29–35 However, only two suggested a benefit of percutaneous closure over medical therapy. In one recent meta-analysis,29 observational study data suggested benefit from percutaneous closure, whereas three randomized controlled trials failed to show a statistically significant benefit.

The conclusions of the meta-analyses must be interpreted with caution because of inherent differences in the randomized controlled trials, including the closure device used, inclusion criteria, study end points, and variations in medical therapy.

Devices differ

A meta-analysis by Khan et al35 showed a benefit of percutaneous closure when evaluating only studies using the Amplatzer PFO occluder (AGA Medical), as in RESPECT and the PC trial.35 As data accumulate, it is important to remember that there are differences between devices. Ongoing trials continue to investigate the Amplatzer device (NCT01550588) and the GORE HELEX Septal Occluder/GORE Septal Occluder (Gore Medical) (NCT00738894).

In another meta-analysis, Pineda et al31 found a benefit with closure in the as-treated analysis using data from all three randomized controlled trials (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.94; P = .02).31 Although paradoxical embolism through the PFO as the mechanism of stroke has been questioned, this finding suggests that actual closure of a PFO may protect against further events, presumably by preventing paradoxical embolism.

Different closure devices have different side effects. The incidence of atrial fibrillation with the CardioSEAL STARFlex device (NMT Medical) is higher than with medical therapy (used in the CLOSURE trial15), whereas this risk was not statistically significantly increased in the PC trial16 and RESPECT,17 which used the Amplatzer device.

Benefit in those with atrial septal aneurysm?

Percutaneous closure has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm.36 There was some benefit of closure over medical therapy in a subgroup analysis from RESPECT in these patients, with a HR of 0.19 (95% CI 0.04–0.87, P = .02),17 although this was not seen in either CLOSURE 1 or the PC trial.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE?

Minor complications of percutaneous closure include bleeding, atrial arrhythmias, device embolization and fracture, and complications related to vascular access. Major complications include hemorrhage requiring transfusion, need for surgery, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, and death.

The cumulative rate of major complications in 10 observational studies was 1.5%, and the rate of minor complications was 7.9%.37 The RESPECT investigators reported a serious adverse event in 4.2% of patients (ranging in severity from chest tightness to cardiac tamponade).17

Another possible consequence of percutaneous closure is the need for chronic anticoagulation because of the increased risk of postprocedural atrial fibrillation seen in meta-analyses,29,31,32 though this may be device-specific.32

Percutaneous closure was considered successful—ie, to have nearly or completely eliminated shunting of blood through the defect—at 6 months of follow-up in 95.9% of patients in the PC trial, 93.5% in RESPECT, and 86.1% in CLOSURE 1.15–17

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING IN DAILY PRACTICE?

Give aspirin. Aspirin is effective in secondary stroke prevention, and data suggest that patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke who receive aspirin therapy alone have a similar risk of recurrent events as patients without PFO.

Give warfarin if indicated. Evidence is insufficient to recommend vitamin K antagonist therapy in all patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. However, coexisting conditions that warrant anticoagulation must be taken into account.

Individualize. Given the lack of evidence to definitively guide management of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, we need to individualize our approach, taking into account patient preferences, bleeding risk, ability to tolerate procedures, and the likelihood that the PFO is at fault.

No definitive answer on PFO closure. The most recent data suggest that closure may be beneficial, but key questions remain: Who will benefit? And what is the ideal medical therapy? Optimal management will only be established by the continued enrollment of appropriate patients into ongoing clinical trials.

Another question is whether it is possible to perform a randomized controlled trial with enough patients to definitively prove whether percutaneous closure is superior to medical therapy. Recent experience would suggest not.

In the meantime, we have some guidance from the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association Council on Stroke38 based on the limited evidence available.

Consider patient preference. The physician should present the options to the patient in a balanced manner to enable him or her to make an informed decision. Patients can also be encouraged to seek additional information at websites such as www.stroke.org and www.nlm.nih.gov.

Referral to an interventional cardiologist for evaluation for closure is reasonable in patients with recurrent stroke, medication failure, complicated atrial septal anatomy such as PFO with aneurysm or large shunt, concurrent thromboembolic disease, or contraindications to anticoagulation.

MORE WORK NEEDED

Areas for further study include further identifying the characteristics of patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke that might indicate who would benefit from percutaneous closure, elucidating the mechanism of stroke in these patients, and determining whether routine stroke evaluation should include echocardiography with a bubble study if there is no change in management based on the finding of PFO.39

References
  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 125:e2e220.
  2. Truelsen T, Piechowski-JóŸwiak B, Bonita R, Mathers C, Bogousslavsky J, Boysen G. Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: a review of available data. Eur J Neurol 2006; 13:581598.
  3. Furlan AJ. Patent foramen ovale and stroke: to close or not to close? Cleve Clin J Med 2007; 74(suppl 1):S118S120.
  4. Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, et al. Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank. Ann Neurol 1989; 25:382390.
  5. Grau AJ, Weimar C, Buggle F, et al. Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in subtypes of ischemic stroke: the German stroke data bank. Stroke 2001; 32:25592566.
  6. Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation 2005; 112:10631072.
  7. Sattiraju S, Masri SC, Liao K, Missov E. Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography of a thrombus entrapped by a patent foramen ovale. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94:e101e102.
  8. Schreiter SW, Phillips JH. Thromboembolus traversing a patent foramen ovale: resolution with anticoagulation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1994; 7:659662.
  9. Hust MH, Staiger M, Braun B. Migration of paradoxic embolus through a patent foramen ovale diagnosed by echocardiography: successful thrombolysis. Am Heart J 1995; 129:620622.
  10. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: incidental or pathogenic? Stroke 2009; 40:23492355.
  11. Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Jin Z, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:797802.
  12. Di Tullio MR, Jin Z, Russo C, et al. Patent foramen ovale, subclinical cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:3541.
  13. Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:440445.
  14. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000; 31:24072413.
  15. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE I Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  16. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
  17. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  18. Kim BJ, Sohn H, Sun BJ, et al. Imaging characteristics of ischemic strokes related to patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:33503356.
  19. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:675680.
  20. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619625.
  21. Wessler BS, Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography in cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: analysis of putative high-risk features from the risk of paradoxical embolism database. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7:125131.
  22. Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA 2009; 302:290297.
  23. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al; Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurysm Study Group. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:17401746.
  24. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP; PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) Investigators. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:26252631.
  25. Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, et al; CODICIA, Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke Study; Stroke Project of the Cerebrovascular Diseases Study Group, Spanish Society of Neurology. Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008; 39:31313136.
  26. Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N, Van Melle G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996; 46:13011305.
  27. Almekhlafi MA, Wilton SB, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Lorenzetti DL, Hill MD. Recurrent cerebral ischemia in medically treated patent foramen ovale: a meta-analysis. Neurology 2009; 73:8997.
  28. Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Abu Dabrh AM, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale closure and medical treatments for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review of observational and randomized evidence. Stroke 2012; 43:422431.
  29. Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2014; 100:389395.
  30. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, Witzke CF, Morris DL, Romero-Corral A. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:33423352.
  31. Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, Kirtane AJ, Sommer RJ, Beohar N. A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82:968975.
  32. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:41324148.
  33. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P. PFO closure vs medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 169:101105.
  34. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Burgess D, Denniss AR. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ 2013; 22:903909.
  35. Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:13161323.
  36. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:377380.
  37. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  38. Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 2006; 37:577617.
  39. Rana BS, Thomas MR, Calvert PA, Monaghan MJ, Hildick-Smith D. Echocardiographic evaluation of patent foramen ovale prior to device closure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3:749760.
References
  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 125:e2e220.
  2. Truelsen T, Piechowski-JóŸwiak B, Bonita R, Mathers C, Bogousslavsky J, Boysen G. Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: a review of available data. Eur J Neurol 2006; 13:581598.
  3. Furlan AJ. Patent foramen ovale and stroke: to close or not to close? Cleve Clin J Med 2007; 74(suppl 1):S118S120.
  4. Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, et al. Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank. Ann Neurol 1989; 25:382390.
  5. Grau AJ, Weimar C, Buggle F, et al. Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in subtypes of ischemic stroke: the German stroke data bank. Stroke 2001; 32:25592566.
  6. Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation 2005; 112:10631072.
  7. Sattiraju S, Masri SC, Liao K, Missov E. Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography of a thrombus entrapped by a patent foramen ovale. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94:e101e102.
  8. Schreiter SW, Phillips JH. Thromboembolus traversing a patent foramen ovale: resolution with anticoagulation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1994; 7:659662.
  9. Hust MH, Staiger M, Braun B. Migration of paradoxic embolus through a patent foramen ovale diagnosed by echocardiography: successful thrombolysis. Am Heart J 1995; 129:620622.
  10. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: incidental or pathogenic? Stroke 2009; 40:23492355.
  11. Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Jin Z, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:797802.
  12. Di Tullio MR, Jin Z, Russo C, et al. Patent foramen ovale, subclinical cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:3541.
  13. Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:440445.
  14. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000; 31:24072413.
  15. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE I Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  16. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
  17. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  18. Kim BJ, Sohn H, Sun BJ, et al. Imaging characteristics of ischemic strokes related to patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:33503356.
  19. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:675680.
  20. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619625.
  21. Wessler BS, Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography in cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: analysis of putative high-risk features from the risk of paradoxical embolism database. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7:125131.
  22. Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA 2009; 302:290297.
  23. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al; Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurysm Study Group. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:17401746.
  24. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP; PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) Investigators. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:26252631.
  25. Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, et al; CODICIA, Right-to-Left Shunt in Cryptogenic Stroke Study; Stroke Project of the Cerebrovascular Diseases Study Group, Spanish Society of Neurology. Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008; 39:31313136.
  26. Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N, Van Melle G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996; 46:13011305.
  27. Almekhlafi MA, Wilton SB, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Lorenzetti DL, Hill MD. Recurrent cerebral ischemia in medically treated patent foramen ovale: a meta-analysis. Neurology 2009; 73:8997.
  28. Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Abu Dabrh AM, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale closure and medical treatments for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review of observational and randomized evidence. Stroke 2012; 43:422431.
  29. Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2014; 100:389395.
  30. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, Witzke CF, Morris DL, Romero-Corral A. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:33423352.
  31. Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, Kirtane AJ, Sommer RJ, Beohar N. A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82:968975.
  32. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:41324148.
  33. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P. PFO closure vs medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 169:101105.
  34. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Burgess D, Denniss AR. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ 2013; 22:903909.
  35. Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:13161323.
  36. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:377380.
  37. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  38. Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al; American Heart Association; American Stroke Association Council on Stroke; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Academy of Neurology. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 2006; 37:577617.
  39. Rana BS, Thomas MR, Calvert PA, Monaghan MJ, Hildick-Smith D. Echocardiographic evaluation of patent foramen ovale prior to device closure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3:749760.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
417-424
Page Number
417-424
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: Many unanswered questions
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: Many unanswered questions
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • PFO is present in up to 25% of the general population, and it is even more common in young patients with cryptogenic stroke.
  • PFO has not been shown to cause stroke or to significantly increase the risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients treated with antiplatelet drugs.
  • In patients with PFO, atrial septal aneurysm and large shunt size may confer increased risk of stroke.
  • There is still no definitive evidence that closure of PFO is better than medical therapy in all patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke.
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Patent foramen ovale and the risk of cryptogenic stroke

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/13/2017 - 12:09
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and the risk of cryptogenic stroke

The article by Roth and Alli in this issue describes in depth more than 10 years of research that addresses the question, Should we close a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke?

See related article

There is no longer any doubt that PFO can be the pathway for thrombus from the venous circulation to go from the right atrium to the left atrium, bypassing the pulmonary capillary filtration bed, and entering the arterial side to produce a stroke, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolus. Two questions remain: What should we do to prevent another episode? And is percutaneous closure of a PFO with the current devices preferable to medical therapy?

How much do we know about the risks and benefits of closure of PFO? I maintain that we know a great deal about interatrial shunt and paradoxical embolism as a cause of cryptogenic stroke. Prospective randomized clinical trials now give us data with which we can provide appropriate direction to our patients. Percutaneous closure is no longer an “experimental procedure,” as insurance companies claim. The experiment has been done, and the only issue is how one interprets the data from the randomized clinical trials.

The review by Roth and Alli comprehensively describes the observational studies, as well as the three randomized clinical trials done to determine whether PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy to prevent recurrent stroke in patients who have already had one cryptogenic stroke. If we understand some of the subtleties and differences between the trials, we can reach an appropriate conclusion as to what to recommend to our patients.

A review of 10 reports of transcatheter closure of PFO vs six reports of medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke showed a range of rates of recurrent stroke at 1 year—between 0% and 4.9% for transcatheter closure, and between 3.8% and 12% for medical therapy.1

These numbers are important because they were used to estimate the number of patients that would be necessary to study in a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate a benefit of PFO closure vs medical therapy. Unlike most studies of new devices, the PFO closure trials were done in an environment in which patients could get their PFO closed with other devices that were already approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for closure of an atrial septal defect. This ability of patients to obtain PFO closure outside of the trial with an off-label device meant that the patients who agreed to be randomized tended to have lower risk for recurrence than patients studied in the observational populations. From a practical standpoint, this meant that the event rate in the patients who participated in the randomized clinical trials (1.7% per year) was lower than predicted from the observational studies.2,3

Another way of saying this is that the randomized clinical trials were underpowered to answer the question. A common way of dealing with this problem is to combine the results of different studies in a meta-analysis. This makes sense if the studies are assessing the same thing. This is not the case with the PFO closure trials. Although the topic of percutaneous PFO closure vs medical therapy was the same, the devices used were different.

In the CLOSURE trial (Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale),3 the device used was the STARFlex, which is no longer produced—and for good reasons. It is not as effective as the Amplatzer or Helex devices in completely closing the right-to-left shunt produced by a PFO. In addition, the CardioSEAL or STARFlex device increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, which was seen in 6% of the treated patients.3 This was the major cause of recurrent stroke in the CLOSURE trial. The CardioSEAL STARFlex device was also more thrombogenic.

 

 

In the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment),2 which used the Amplatzer PFO closure device, there was no increased incidence of atrial fibrillation in the device group compared with the control group. Therefore, it is not appropriate to combine the results of the CLOSURE trial with the results of the RESPECT trial and PC trial,4 both of which used the Amplatzer device.

Our patients want to know what the potential risks and benefits will be if they get their PFO closed with a specific device. They don’t want to know the average risk between two different devices.

However, if you do a meta-analysis of the RESPECT and PC trials, which used the same Amplatzer PFO occluder device, and combine the number of patients studied to increase the statistical power, then the benefit of PFO closure is significant even with an intention-to-treat analysis. By combining the two studies that assessed the same device, you reach a completely different interpretation than if you do a meta-analysis including the CLOSURE trial, which showed no benefit.

The medical community should not uncritically accept meta-analysis methodology. It is a marvelous case example of how scientific methods can be inappropriately used and two diametrically opposed conclusions reached if the meta-analysis combines two different types of devices vs a meta-analysis of just the Amplatzer device.

If we combine the numbers from the RESPECT and PC trials, there were 23 strokes in 691 patients (3.3%) in the medical groups and 10 strokes in 703 patients (1.4%) who underwent PFO closure. By chi square analysis of this intention-to-treat protocol, PFO closure provides a statistically significant reduction in preventing recurrent stroke (95% confidence interval 0.20–0.89, P = .02).

From the patient’s perspective, what is important is this: If I get my PFO closed with an Amplatzer PFO occluder device, what are the risks of the procedure, and what are the potential benefits compared with medical therapy? We can now answer that question definitively. I tell my patients, “The risks of the procedure are remarkably low (about 1%) in experienced hands, and the benefit is that your risk of recurrent stroke will be reduced 73%2 compared with medical therapy.” In the RESPECT Trial, the as-treated cohort consisted of 958 patients with 21 primary end-point events (5 in the closure group and 16 in the medical-therapy group). The rate of the primary end point was 0.39 events per 100 patient-years in the closure group vs 1.45 events per 100 patient-years in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.75; P = .007).

Not all cryptogenic strokes in people who have a PFO are caused by paradoxical embolism. PFO may be an innocent bystander. In addition, not all people who have a paradoxical embolism will have a recurrent stroke. For example, if a young woman presents with a PFO and stroke, is it possible that she can prevent another stroke just by stopping her birth-control pills and not have her PFO closed? What is the risk of recurrent stroke if she were to become pregnant? We do not know the answers to these questions.

Your patients do not want to wait to find out if they are going to have another stroke. The meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials for paradoxical embolism demonstrates that the closure devices are safe and effective. The FDA should approve the Amplatzer PFO occluder with an indication to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with PFO and an initial cryptogenic event.

References
  1. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  2. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  3. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  4. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Jonathan Tobis, MD
Clinical Professor of Medicine, Director of Interventional Cardiology Research, and Director, Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Program, University of California, Los Angeles

Address: Jonathan Tobis, MD, UCLA, BL-394 CHS UCLA, 10833 LeConte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095; e-mail: JTobis@mednet.ucla.edu

Dr. Tobis is one of the principal investigators of the PREMIUM Trial, which is assessing the benefit and safety of the Amplatzer PFO closure device to treat patients with debilitating migraine headache.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
425-426
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Jonathan Tobis, MD
Clinical Professor of Medicine, Director of Interventional Cardiology Research, and Director, Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Program, University of California, Los Angeles

Address: Jonathan Tobis, MD, UCLA, BL-394 CHS UCLA, 10833 LeConte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095; e-mail: JTobis@mednet.ucla.edu

Dr. Tobis is one of the principal investigators of the PREMIUM Trial, which is assessing the benefit and safety of the Amplatzer PFO closure device to treat patients with debilitating migraine headache.

Author and Disclosure Information

Jonathan Tobis, MD
Clinical Professor of Medicine, Director of Interventional Cardiology Research, and Director, Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Program, University of California, Los Angeles

Address: Jonathan Tobis, MD, UCLA, BL-394 CHS UCLA, 10833 LeConte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095; e-mail: JTobis@mednet.ucla.edu

Dr. Tobis is one of the principal investigators of the PREMIUM Trial, which is assessing the benefit and safety of the Amplatzer PFO closure device to treat patients with debilitating migraine headache.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The article by Roth and Alli in this issue describes in depth more than 10 years of research that addresses the question, Should we close a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke?

See related article

There is no longer any doubt that PFO can be the pathway for thrombus from the venous circulation to go from the right atrium to the left atrium, bypassing the pulmonary capillary filtration bed, and entering the arterial side to produce a stroke, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolus. Two questions remain: What should we do to prevent another episode? And is percutaneous closure of a PFO with the current devices preferable to medical therapy?

How much do we know about the risks and benefits of closure of PFO? I maintain that we know a great deal about interatrial shunt and paradoxical embolism as a cause of cryptogenic stroke. Prospective randomized clinical trials now give us data with which we can provide appropriate direction to our patients. Percutaneous closure is no longer an “experimental procedure,” as insurance companies claim. The experiment has been done, and the only issue is how one interprets the data from the randomized clinical trials.

The review by Roth and Alli comprehensively describes the observational studies, as well as the three randomized clinical trials done to determine whether PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy to prevent recurrent stroke in patients who have already had one cryptogenic stroke. If we understand some of the subtleties and differences between the trials, we can reach an appropriate conclusion as to what to recommend to our patients.

A review of 10 reports of transcatheter closure of PFO vs six reports of medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke showed a range of rates of recurrent stroke at 1 year—between 0% and 4.9% for transcatheter closure, and between 3.8% and 12% for medical therapy.1

These numbers are important because they were used to estimate the number of patients that would be necessary to study in a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate a benefit of PFO closure vs medical therapy. Unlike most studies of new devices, the PFO closure trials were done in an environment in which patients could get their PFO closed with other devices that were already approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for closure of an atrial septal defect. This ability of patients to obtain PFO closure outside of the trial with an off-label device meant that the patients who agreed to be randomized tended to have lower risk for recurrence than patients studied in the observational populations. From a practical standpoint, this meant that the event rate in the patients who participated in the randomized clinical trials (1.7% per year) was lower than predicted from the observational studies.2,3

Another way of saying this is that the randomized clinical trials were underpowered to answer the question. A common way of dealing with this problem is to combine the results of different studies in a meta-analysis. This makes sense if the studies are assessing the same thing. This is not the case with the PFO closure trials. Although the topic of percutaneous PFO closure vs medical therapy was the same, the devices used were different.

In the CLOSURE trial (Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale),3 the device used was the STARFlex, which is no longer produced—and for good reasons. It is not as effective as the Amplatzer or Helex devices in completely closing the right-to-left shunt produced by a PFO. In addition, the CardioSEAL or STARFlex device increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, which was seen in 6% of the treated patients.3 This was the major cause of recurrent stroke in the CLOSURE trial. The CardioSEAL STARFlex device was also more thrombogenic.

 

 

In the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment),2 which used the Amplatzer PFO closure device, there was no increased incidence of atrial fibrillation in the device group compared with the control group. Therefore, it is not appropriate to combine the results of the CLOSURE trial with the results of the RESPECT trial and PC trial,4 both of which used the Amplatzer device.

Our patients want to know what the potential risks and benefits will be if they get their PFO closed with a specific device. They don’t want to know the average risk between two different devices.

However, if you do a meta-analysis of the RESPECT and PC trials, which used the same Amplatzer PFO occluder device, and combine the number of patients studied to increase the statistical power, then the benefit of PFO closure is significant even with an intention-to-treat analysis. By combining the two studies that assessed the same device, you reach a completely different interpretation than if you do a meta-analysis including the CLOSURE trial, which showed no benefit.

The medical community should not uncritically accept meta-analysis methodology. It is a marvelous case example of how scientific methods can be inappropriately used and two diametrically opposed conclusions reached if the meta-analysis combines two different types of devices vs a meta-analysis of just the Amplatzer device.

If we combine the numbers from the RESPECT and PC trials, there were 23 strokes in 691 patients (3.3%) in the medical groups and 10 strokes in 703 patients (1.4%) who underwent PFO closure. By chi square analysis of this intention-to-treat protocol, PFO closure provides a statistically significant reduction in preventing recurrent stroke (95% confidence interval 0.20–0.89, P = .02).

From the patient’s perspective, what is important is this: If I get my PFO closed with an Amplatzer PFO occluder device, what are the risks of the procedure, and what are the potential benefits compared with medical therapy? We can now answer that question definitively. I tell my patients, “The risks of the procedure are remarkably low (about 1%) in experienced hands, and the benefit is that your risk of recurrent stroke will be reduced 73%2 compared with medical therapy.” In the RESPECT Trial, the as-treated cohort consisted of 958 patients with 21 primary end-point events (5 in the closure group and 16 in the medical-therapy group). The rate of the primary end point was 0.39 events per 100 patient-years in the closure group vs 1.45 events per 100 patient-years in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.75; P = .007).

Not all cryptogenic strokes in people who have a PFO are caused by paradoxical embolism. PFO may be an innocent bystander. In addition, not all people who have a paradoxical embolism will have a recurrent stroke. For example, if a young woman presents with a PFO and stroke, is it possible that she can prevent another stroke just by stopping her birth-control pills and not have her PFO closed? What is the risk of recurrent stroke if she were to become pregnant? We do not know the answers to these questions.

Your patients do not want to wait to find out if they are going to have another stroke. The meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials for paradoxical embolism demonstrates that the closure devices are safe and effective. The FDA should approve the Amplatzer PFO occluder with an indication to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with PFO and an initial cryptogenic event.

The article by Roth and Alli in this issue describes in depth more than 10 years of research that addresses the question, Should we close a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke?

See related article

There is no longer any doubt that PFO can be the pathway for thrombus from the venous circulation to go from the right atrium to the left atrium, bypassing the pulmonary capillary filtration bed, and entering the arterial side to produce a stroke, myocardial infarction, or peripheral embolus. Two questions remain: What should we do to prevent another episode? And is percutaneous closure of a PFO with the current devices preferable to medical therapy?

How much do we know about the risks and benefits of closure of PFO? I maintain that we know a great deal about interatrial shunt and paradoxical embolism as a cause of cryptogenic stroke. Prospective randomized clinical trials now give us data with which we can provide appropriate direction to our patients. Percutaneous closure is no longer an “experimental procedure,” as insurance companies claim. The experiment has been done, and the only issue is how one interprets the data from the randomized clinical trials.

The review by Roth and Alli comprehensively describes the observational studies, as well as the three randomized clinical trials done to determine whether PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy to prevent recurrent stroke in patients who have already had one cryptogenic stroke. If we understand some of the subtleties and differences between the trials, we can reach an appropriate conclusion as to what to recommend to our patients.

A review of 10 reports of transcatheter closure of PFO vs six reports of medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke showed a range of rates of recurrent stroke at 1 year—between 0% and 4.9% for transcatheter closure, and between 3.8% and 12% for medical therapy.1

These numbers are important because they were used to estimate the number of patients that would be necessary to study in a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate a benefit of PFO closure vs medical therapy. Unlike most studies of new devices, the PFO closure trials were done in an environment in which patients could get their PFO closed with other devices that were already approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for closure of an atrial septal defect. This ability of patients to obtain PFO closure outside of the trial with an off-label device meant that the patients who agreed to be randomized tended to have lower risk for recurrence than patients studied in the observational populations. From a practical standpoint, this meant that the event rate in the patients who participated in the randomized clinical trials (1.7% per year) was lower than predicted from the observational studies.2,3

Another way of saying this is that the randomized clinical trials were underpowered to answer the question. A common way of dealing with this problem is to combine the results of different studies in a meta-analysis. This makes sense if the studies are assessing the same thing. This is not the case with the PFO closure trials. Although the topic of percutaneous PFO closure vs medical therapy was the same, the devices used were different.

In the CLOSURE trial (Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale),3 the device used was the STARFlex, which is no longer produced—and for good reasons. It is not as effective as the Amplatzer or Helex devices in completely closing the right-to-left shunt produced by a PFO. In addition, the CardioSEAL or STARFlex device increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, which was seen in 6% of the treated patients.3 This was the major cause of recurrent stroke in the CLOSURE trial. The CardioSEAL STARFlex device was also more thrombogenic.

 

 

In the RESPECT trial (Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment),2 which used the Amplatzer PFO closure device, there was no increased incidence of atrial fibrillation in the device group compared with the control group. Therefore, it is not appropriate to combine the results of the CLOSURE trial with the results of the RESPECT trial and PC trial,4 both of which used the Amplatzer device.

Our patients want to know what the potential risks and benefits will be if they get their PFO closed with a specific device. They don’t want to know the average risk between two different devices.

However, if you do a meta-analysis of the RESPECT and PC trials, which used the same Amplatzer PFO occluder device, and combine the number of patients studied to increase the statistical power, then the benefit of PFO closure is significant even with an intention-to-treat analysis. By combining the two studies that assessed the same device, you reach a completely different interpretation than if you do a meta-analysis including the CLOSURE trial, which showed no benefit.

The medical community should not uncritically accept meta-analysis methodology. It is a marvelous case example of how scientific methods can be inappropriately used and two diametrically opposed conclusions reached if the meta-analysis combines two different types of devices vs a meta-analysis of just the Amplatzer device.

If we combine the numbers from the RESPECT and PC trials, there were 23 strokes in 691 patients (3.3%) in the medical groups and 10 strokes in 703 patients (1.4%) who underwent PFO closure. By chi square analysis of this intention-to-treat protocol, PFO closure provides a statistically significant reduction in preventing recurrent stroke (95% confidence interval 0.20–0.89, P = .02).

From the patient’s perspective, what is important is this: If I get my PFO closed with an Amplatzer PFO occluder device, what are the risks of the procedure, and what are the potential benefits compared with medical therapy? We can now answer that question definitively. I tell my patients, “The risks of the procedure are remarkably low (about 1%) in experienced hands, and the benefit is that your risk of recurrent stroke will be reduced 73%2 compared with medical therapy.” In the RESPECT Trial, the as-treated cohort consisted of 958 patients with 21 primary end-point events (5 in the closure group and 16 in the medical-therapy group). The rate of the primary end point was 0.39 events per 100 patient-years in the closure group vs 1.45 events per 100 patient-years in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.75; P = .007).

Not all cryptogenic strokes in people who have a PFO are caused by paradoxical embolism. PFO may be an innocent bystander. In addition, not all people who have a paradoxical embolism will have a recurrent stroke. For example, if a young woman presents with a PFO and stroke, is it possible that she can prevent another stroke just by stopping her birth-control pills and not have her PFO closed? What is the risk of recurrent stroke if she were to become pregnant? We do not know the answers to these questions.

Your patients do not want to wait to find out if they are going to have another stroke. The meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials for paradoxical embolism demonstrates that the closure devices are safe and effective. The FDA should approve the Amplatzer PFO occluder with an indication to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with PFO and an initial cryptogenic event.

References
  1. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  2. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  3. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  4. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
References
  1. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:753760.
  2. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al; RESPECT Investigators. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10921100.
  3. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al; CLOSURE Investigators. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991999.
  4. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al; PC Trial Investigators. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:10831091.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 81(7)
Page Number
425-426
Page Number
425-426
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and the risk of cryptogenic stroke
Display Headline
Patent foramen ovale and the risk of cryptogenic stroke
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media